DISCOURSES OF A FREE MIND

Why Evil and Suffering Matter

2012-02-08T18:28:00.000-08:00

“If there is no God, why is there so much good? If there is a God, why is there so much evil?” Augustine

In early 2004, my father was diagnosed of lung cancer. Being the optimist that he was and a lover of life, he fought hard to survive. After a series of tedious chemotherapy and other high-prized medication, still, there was no showing of positive signs to recovery. His doctor, who often assured us of his greater chances of survival, now seemed hopeless when my father had not responded to his medication the way he expected. We were stunned to see our father’s deteriorating condition. We can feel the pangs of his ordeal. But knowing that he had always been a robust fighter, he never complained nor blamed anyone for his condition. We on the other hand, the watchers, are the impatient ones. We can’t seem to understand what was happening. No amount of medical explanation could ease our worries. But my father, with Bible on hand, kept on assuring us that God would rescue us from this unfortunate event. “I will be healed,” he said more than couple of times. And all of us just can’t hold back our emotions. We were teary-eyed in the hospital room, all trying our best to conceal our weaknesses. I believe it was his Christian faith that led him all throughout his suffering. The longer we stayed in the hospital, the stronger his faith grew. Reality however bits really hard. His insurmountable faith was not solely enough to keep him alive. If only we had millions to sustain his medication, I guess my father would have never stopped fighting. But at some point, we need to decide as a family. Until finally, perhaps seeing the hopelessness of the medication with coffers almost empty, he simply uttered, “I just want to go home.” As painful and frustrating as it was, we had no choice but to grant his wish. And so off we go. And soon, off he went.

My father lasted only a month after we left Manila. While the sun was about to rise for the rest of us, it was already setting down for him. I can still remember that dawn when my aunt called me only to break the saddest news of all: Papang is gone! Those exact words still haunt me up to this day. The news of my father’s demise loosened all emotions kept inside. Afterall, it was I who was with him in every inch of his ordeal. And his strength made me feel strong too. Not until that day. My chest was on the brink of explosion. Tears were endlessly flowing as if wanting to wash away the grief that owned my every limb. The pain was unbearable if not excruciating. Papang was no longer here to comfort his little Pey. I felt lost like a little child. But I am a child no more and Papang would not want to see me this way. It was indeed difficult to clear my thoughts then but I tried hard enough to hang on desperately and rationalize everything as part of reality. On board the airplane heading home, questions lingered on my mind. “Why did something like this has to happen?” And I began to question the purpose of pain and suffering in this world, “C’mon God, my father served the ministry whole heartedly yet you took him away from us, what in the name of reason is that?” It was by far the unhappiest flight of my life. For the duration of that flight all I ever did was to control my tears and emotions. Yet tears just kept on flowing incessantly and there was no way I could have stop it. Only Papang could stop it. As the in-flight attendants were busy with their chores smiling at every passenger while serving refreshments, there I was languishing with the thought that my father was gone─ gone forever!

Years later as I witness a friend so devastated with the tragic death of his mother, killed in a car accident, an officemate whose child is stricken with an incurable disease, a mendicant afflicted with leprosy, I can’t help but sympathize with their predicament. I’m sure as human beings they too asked the same age-old existential question: If there is a loving God then why is there so much suffering in the world?

Before going into the heart of the matter, let me just dabble a bit with the philosophical aspect of the problem of evil and suffering in general and try to decimate whatever intellectual reservations you might have concerning this existential issue. For purposes of clarity however I shall be using moral and natural evil interchangeably. In any case, let me remind the reader that even in philosophical realm of argumentation God is not expendable.

The Intellectual Problem of Evil

What is evil in the first place? Evil in simple terms is a departure of what is “ought” to be. For evil to exists, goodness too must exist. Evil therefore is not something that has an existence on its own rather it is a corruption of that which already exists. To illustrate, tooth decay can only exist if the tooth exists. As Christian philosopher Norman Geisler notes, “Evil is like a wound in an arm or moth-holes in a garment. “But I must hasten to note that to say evil has no existence of its own is not the same as saying that evil is an illusion or unreal. Evil is the corruption of something good, that is to say “it is not an actual entity but a real corruption in an actual entity.” Thus, it stands to reason that evil is real and suffering is a conspicuous form of evil.

The problem of evil and suffering arises because God claims to be all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good yet evil exists. Let us focus on the two divine attributes namely, God being all-powerful and all-good. At first blush, common sense can easily point out the logical contradiction of these claims. How can God be all-good when there is so much evil and suffering in the world? Consequently, if He is held to be all-powerful then certainly to defeat evil is effortless yet the opposite seems to be true, evil never cease to exist. To reconcile the three concepts is almost logically unsound because either you have to deny any of the three concepts exists or modify the concepts altogether to achieve consistency. How then should we respond to such overwhelming evidence of suffering and evil while at the same time keeping God in the picture? Famous skeptic David Hume raised the possibility that the Biblical God does not exist in this scathing manner: Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing whence then is evil? The perceived logical contradiction of the divine attributes with the existence of evil stems from an erroneous appreciation of concepts. What does it mean when we say God is all-powerful? I think it is here where the questioner attempts to explain everything away just to make his point. By all-powerful, most skeptics think that God can do everything and anything. But “omnipotence,” at least from the theistic sense, is not to be understood as “omnivolitional,” meaning God can will anything. If that be the case then God can will himself into extinction. God can will himself to make mistakes. So if we are trying to achieve coherence, then we must avoid contradiction to make the assertion logically valid and truthful. Thus, “omnipotence” does not mean that God can do everything. It only means God can do anything that which is possible. Anything that which is meaningful. He can’t make squares circles because the analogy poses mutual exclusivity. As Christian philosopher Peter Kreeft explains, “God can do everything that is meaningful, everything that is possible, and everything that makes sense at all. God cannot make himself cease to exist. He cannot make good evil.” To say that God is all-powerful, and that includes the power to make mistakes, is to create a self-contradiction. If we seek coherence on the divine attributes of God, I think the problem is not with God's nature or character but the validity of the question itself.

Viewed in this context, it would make a fool out of God to bestow free will upon human beings with no possibility of moral evil. Imagine a world without pain and suffering and we will end up like robots for we would not have the capacity to make choices and freely love. But is it correct to say that God is the creator of evil? To say that evil is a product of creation is to say that evil can exists on its own. “No, he (God) created the possibility of evil: people actualized that potentiality,” said Kreeft in the best-selling book The Case for Faith. “The source of evil is not God’s power but mankind’s freedom. Even an all-powerful God could not have created a world in which people had genuine freedom and yet there was no potentiality of sin, because freedom includes the possibility of sin within its own meaning. It’s a self-contradiction, a meaningless nothing, to have a world where there’s real choice while at the same time no possibility of choosing evil.” As one noted Biblical scholar put it, “Evil is inherent in the risky gift of free will.” Therefore, the claim that God is all-powerful is in fact logically consistent with the existence of evil.

David Hume’s emotion-laden critique of God is a valid one for it touches the heart and soul of human existence. His tirade on the divine attributes of God represents our own hidden presuppositions on the mystery of evil and suffering vis a vis the existence of a loving God. The terrorist attack in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001 or the occurrence of the Nazi holocaust seems to validate Hume’s thesis. Where was God when Hitler committed genocide or when Stalin murdered his own people all for the sake of power? If indeed there is a God, and he is what he claims to be, these atrocities would have not happened. But let us pause and analyze the core of this existential question. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Here for the sake of argument Hume impliedly accepted God to be all-powerful and has shifted his critique on God’s character to demonstrate contradiction. If He is all-powerful then certainly He cannot be called all-good for refusing to prevent evil. Thus, since laws of logic dictate that contradictions cannot be true at the same time, it is therefore logical to conclude that God does not exist. How then should we debunk this type of philosophical word games? Does the abundance of evil and suffering really disprove the existence of an all-loving God? Christian apologist Dr. Ravi Zacharias has a unique method, sort of a philosophical judo in dealing with this problem: The existence of God cannot be disproved by introducing the reality of evil and wickedness. Those categories only exist if an absolute moral law exists. And an absolute moral law exists only if God exists. Implicit in the equation of Hume’s critique on God is the smuggled assumption of an absolute moral framework from which he ought to judge God as malevolent if he refuses to wield his power to defeat evil. What was he really saying when he categorized God as malevolent if he is able but not willing to defeat evil? Is he saying that such behavior ‘ought’ not to be good of a God who claims to be all-good? In any of these assertions, Hume has just invoked a moral law in raising the question, a moral law which declares: It would be immoral of God, with all the powers at His disposal, not to prevent evil and suffering in this world. Hume’s critique of God had in fact unearthed his own assumption of an absolute moral law that squarely contradicted his conclusion─ that there is no God. In other words, the abundance of evil and suffering does actually prove the existence of God rather than disproving it. Let me illustrate further on this point. Again I will borrow Dr. Ravi Zacharias’ succinct argument:

When you assert that there is such a thing as evil, you must assume there is such a thing as good. When you say there is such a thing as good you must assume there is a moral law by which to distinguish between good and evil. There must be a standard by which to determine what is good and what is evil. When you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver—the source of the moral law.

The fact of the matter is it is impossible to judge evil from good unless there is an infinite reference point that is supremely good. And it is here that God is indispensable for He alone can exhaust the definition of absolutely good. “If God does not exist,” writes Fyodor Dostoevsky, “everything is permitted.” To categorize Hitler’s actions as evil one must reconsider his assumptions implicit in the statement he is making. If one is to claim that Hitler’s actions as evil can someone also disagree and say that the holocaust is perfectly right? I’m sure someone can but can he validly justify his assumptions that a moral law should be viewed as a matter of taste or personal preference? The answer is no. To call God as ‘malevolent’ for allowing evil things to happen, the questioner must in the first place, show how he has arrived at an absolute moral law from which he anchored his moral critique on God. If he has none then he will end up shooting his own feet by raising the question in the moral context. There’s no other way of doing it and the questioner is trapped with his own assumptions. Man cannot be the measure of everything. Any philosophy that has built its moral structure with the assumption that a transcendent being is expendable finds itself groping in the dark. History is replete with lessons that our judgment on what is right and wrong cannot be trusted. The horrible crimes committed by Hitler and his peers founded on a godless philosophy should alert us that man could never be the measure of an objective moral law. In sum, we could never escape reality that without God as an infinite reference point, there are no moral absolutes from which to distinguish right and wrong. Otherwise “one is like a person on a boat at sea on a cloudy night without a compass.”

Is there a purpose in allowing evil and suffering? “All is for the best in the best of all possible words,” so said Voltaire in his magnum opus Candide, a satire on misplaced optimism. But is there really an ultimate purpose behind every suffering and evil from the Christian purview? I sincerely believe there is. Albeit our world may not be the best of all possible worlds but it is the best way to the best possible world. Most of us think that because there is so much evil and pain in this world God is not dealing with it at all. At best, God is not finished yet. If He claims to be an all-powerful God then nothing, absolutely nothing is impossible. If He single-handedly created the universe, defeating evil is piece of cake. Popularly stated: If God is all-good, he will defeat evil. If God is all-powerful, he can defeat evil. Evil is not yet defeated. Therefore, God can and will one day defeat evil.

The Emotional Problem of Evil

Now that we have confronted the logical problem of evil vis a vis a loving God, let us now deal with the emotional problem of evil. Let us now look at my own existential journey so far and how I responded to it.

In the Christian worldview the problem of evil, pain and suffering is not really a problem. In fact, it is a manifestation of God's awesome character that can be summarized in a single word: love. God created the universe with a pupose. We are not here by accident or by chance chemical reactions as scientist, the so-called "brights" would like us to believe. Thus, evil and suffering must be viewed in the context of God's purposes that give meaning and significance in our lives. Sometimes things appear to be pointless and meaningless. When something bad happens that is beyond human comprehension, we don't seek refuge from philosophical or scientific theories, instead we turn to God for comfort. Then ask him why these horrible things had to happen. What is the ultimate meaning of life. What is the significance of suffering. All of these questions are deeply rooted in our nature as human beings, sort of a reflex, because we are designed to feel and question our existence one time or another.

If God does exist, how can he be called all-good while allowing my father, his faithful servant, to suffer and die? I’m sure someone out there has asked the same question and it never gets old. We could always tell similar stories of personal pain and sorrow. No one could escape this dreadful feeling of losing a loved one. The sad part in life is each and every one of us will have his fair share of pain and suffering. But the hardest part to accept in all of human existence is the fact that we will all die. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. We must understand that from the standpoint of God all is not lost here. Yes it’s true that once a loved one dies the thought of never seeing him again, at least in our lifetime, is the most painful stage of the ordeal. And for sure as we struggle to understand the meaning of a ‘lost’ life God takes his share of the burden and constantly feels our pain. But we must note that God is the author of life and the power to restore it is inherent in His divine authorship. While we may conclude that a life is lost in death, God has a different way of looking at it by restoring life to the one who has ‘lost’ it. “The life that is ‘lost’ is not lost when it is in the hands of the one who made it and sustains it.” I’m sure by now my father is more than happy to know that a life with God in heaven is so much greater than the life lived in flesh.

Few years back, as I witness a close friend so devastated with the tragic death of his mother, killed in a car accident all I could mutter was, “Everything must have a purpose.” I know it was a lame explanation for what had happened but it has to be right? Surely I thought, if death is meaningless then life is meaningless too and vice versa. Be that as it may but how can we, those who are left behind to grief, find meaning in the face of suffering, say death of a loved one? When my father died, the one who suffered the most was his lifelong partner for many years─ my mother. His death made my mom plunge into the depths of depression. Moving forward without him became a day by day struggle. As her children we tried our best to comfort and remind her that all is not lost when Papang died and that we are still here to take care of her, to love her. Of course we knew how unsuccessful we are in comforting her for we could never replace the warmth of his embrace. My father indeed was a tough act to follow.

On my part,I suddenly lost interest in my law studies. My grades went down and my performance in class was gravely affected. Back then, he used to brag that his youngest son was in law school and all that he really wanted after retirement was to see my name in the rolls of attorneys. Of course, he witnessed how my eldest brother took his oath as a lawyer at the PICC, but my case was a special one. I guess probably because I’m the prodigal bunso in the family. Unfortunately,the big ‘C’ took him away while I was still at the inception of my law studies. It took years before I was able to pull my act altogether.

So where was God amidst the raging storm that struck us? I believe He stood right in the middle. For those who bears the bereavement and must survive the loss of a loved one, God offers utmost comfort and healing. It is here that we Christians can find the ultimate purpose behind our sufferings. In Cries of the Heart, Dr. Ravi Zacharias made this wonderful reminder:

Across history the greatest testimonies of the all-encompassing grace of God have been demonstrated, not as psychological ploys, but because of the real presence of God in the life of one who lives with that pain. God not only gives inner healing and sustenance but the promise that those who have been separated will meet again. Relationships that are made in God never die.

I always cling to that promise that someday, somewhere in heaven our family will be whole again. And believe me, God never fails to fulfill his promises and that makes our relationship with Him so fascinating and real.

Atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once said that, "Men and Women can endure any amount of suffering as long as they know the why of their existence." Ironically, I agree with him for there is some profound Biblical truth in his statement. Belief in God and the commitment to follow Christ makes us resilient amidst overwhelming pain and suffering. Our endurance comes not from the "primieval soup" of life but from the character of God as exemplified in the holy book. The wonder of God's character by allowing His sinless son to be crucified speak of one very important aspect of the problem of evil and suffering; that He can take even the worst of evil and turn it to good ends.

As I revisit the life of my beloved father, I realized what a wonderful life he had lived. Unlike other people, his joy of living does not come from mundane sources like material things or academic pedigree. His, came from God. Happiness to him came handily by serving the Lord through the ministry. While sophisticated philosophers struggled for centuries with existential issues on how to achieve happiness, my father had made it all appear too simple for him. In his epitaph these words are inscribed which best explains his simple yet profound biblical philosophy in life, “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

References:
■Zacharias, Ravi K. 2008. The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheist. Zondervan
■Steele, David R. 2008. Atheism Explained. Open Court Publishing Co.
■Strobel, Lee 2000. The Case for Faith. Zondervan
■Rhodes, Ron. 2003 “Tough Question about Evil” in Who Made God (Geisler, Norman and Zacharias, Ravi K. as General Editors) Zondervan

VICTORY STAINED WITH DISHONOR

2011-09-16T02:54:00.000-07:00

PROLOGUE

“When a great tree falls,” so said one great American jurist, “we are surprised to see how meager the landscape seems without it.” So are we, denizens of Isabela City with the senseless death of my dear friend, Nickarter “Boy” Gonzalo.

Nickarter “Boy” Gonzalo was an underrated and often misunderstood political pundit of my hometown. Well spoken, witty and with a razor sharp intellect, Boy Gonz, as friends would call him, could have been the right man to go against the gargantuan tide of abuse and corruption in Isabela City.

Boy was very articulate with his views on local politics. In all our conversations, he consistently displayed his political idealism as he expounds his critique on the whales and minnows occupying top-echelon positions in local government. You may hate his guts, scorn at his peculiar ways, be offended with his candor but at the end of the day you will realize, idealism does not, after all solely belong to the young. And Boy Gonzalo, was exactly that. A man tested by time, his heart was full of idealism that even a million young trapos could not match. Actually, I often tease him that with his age (he was in his 50s), I find it really strange that he still believes in cherished ideals such as meritocracy, idealism and morality as standards for good governance. By now, I quipped, he should be thinking along the lines of trapo politics to get elected as city councilor or whatever. But before I could pound him some more, Boy made a hand gesture signaling me to stop and said, “Pey, I may be a nobody but I would like to leave a legacy for my children before I die.”

Call him a perennial loser in the arena of politics and he would gladly concede. Boy’s fetish to join the political arena could hardly be considered a personal ambition. For the both of us, winning an election is just a bonus. It's the impact that we are making on the voters that counts. But for all his bravado, Nickarter “Boy” Gonzalo is a man of faith, a man of substance and strong conviction that decency in public office is not a far fetched dream.

Below is an article that he was working on, an unfinished diary of his political journey in Barangay politics. “Victory Stained with Dishonor” captures in pristine details how politics in my hometown is being conducted at the grassroots of the political spectrum. Here Boy Gonzalo was at his best. Like a resilient fighter, his consistent failures did not deter him from pushing his deep-seated advocacies. He treats every failure as his badge of honor.

I’m reproducing this write-up to serve as a living testament on the extent of corruption in our political system even at the lowest level. But more than anything else of course, I would like to illuminate through this piece the kind of public servant Boy Gonzalo was. Albeit relatively an obscure and undervalued political figure of Isabela City, to this writer Nickarter “Boy” Gonzalo stands tallest in the pantheon of principled Basilenos to have walked this earth. Actually right now, I am torn into thinking that with the way things went, our hometown doesn’t deserve a man like him.

I’m forever grateful to have met him, conversed with him and to have drunk tons of coffee with him…And oh, the countless books we have devoured be it on Christian apologetics or Philippine politics. Farewell Brod. As promised, I will not falter from keeping the flame burning!

Below is the reproduction of Boy’s unfinished article...

A friend texted me this message quoting Rizal “to fall with the head high and serene brow is not to fall, it is to triumph. The sad thing is to fall with the stain of dishonor.” Further, he elaborated this statement by a political advocacy that seems to be out of the ordinary: the notion of victory is not to equate winning the elections but to shake the system. Winning if at all, is just a bonus. And here is the stronger statement that became both me and my friend’s advocacy in politics: Run not to win but to educate the electorate. He pushed me to run in the barangay elections. I thought of this quite seriously and found this idea a profound novelty in politics.

Run I did…and lost in the elections with serene brow and head held up high perhaps humbled with the fall but triumphant in my (and my friend’s) advocacy to agitatingly shake the tide of evil practices in politics. Now it’s my friend’s turn to go for it in 2013. But that would be another story.

How did I shake the political system? It wasn’t exactly shaking the system but courageously unnerving voters who sell their votes and denouncing political adversaries who were blatantly practicing the usual heinous practice of vote-buying during the campaign.

I ran alone as councilman of my barangay. Not exactly the best of ideas to drum up support or teamwork from fellow candidates within a party system. But more than that, I also prepared my own package of realizable programs for my barangay. I knew I had the necessary credentials to get elected being a former consultant of an ex-mayor, a co-proponent in successfully pushing for the cityhood of my town and a former lecturer of righteous governance in the barangay level. Running alone was my way to escape the company of traditional politicians (trapo candidates swamped even in the barangay level). I knew they were also my target of my so-called shakening. Since barangay elections were free from any political parties, I could just insert myself with any groups holding campaign rallies.

In one rally that I got invited, I detonated a fiery speech mincing no words condemning rampant vote-buying and criticizing incumbents who were only getting their honorarium as barangay officials but were constant absentees in barangay sessions. “Are these the kind of leaders we elected? Bato-bato sa langit, ang tamaan, bukol. There are no vote buyers if there are no vote sellers I screamed.” I was telling the hard truth but then I also realize truth was a very unlikely product to be salable to people. I was paddling against the wave of “normal” campaigning by stirring and shaking the electorate’s ears. My speech also unnerved other candidates that suddenly I had political enemies.

Besides campaigning as honest as I can, I went out of my way to lecture SK candidates about keeping the campaign within legal bounds and never resort to vote-buying. I thought this was a good strategy also of courting the votes of parents while educating these young candidates. If elected, I also volunteered that I was going to be a working partner and guidepost to whoever was the winning SK chairman in the barangay council.

Anyway, why did I lose? I made it very clear to the constituents of my barangay that I was a candidate who would not give, pay, and buy votes to win. The program of giving and helping would come after the elections, not during the campaign.

When the results of the elections came in, barangay folks began whispering that those who mostly won were the ones who gave rice, money, sardines and other food stuffs. A winning candidate for barangay kagawad was overhead that she spent close to P100,000 for vote buying purposes. Another candidate disposed off 35 sacks of NFA rice packed in 2 kilos for every voter using a religious practice of sadaca as a vote buying tool. The familiar corrupt perverted idea “kung wala kang pera, wag ka ng tumakbo” basically means “kung wala kang perang pambili ng boto, wag ka ng tumakbo” which nefarious candidates would never admit in public. Take note of the word “nefarious” to distinguish from some other honest candidates who ran for public office.

The day before Election Day is considered as a non-campaign day. However, many candidates resorted to “kamang” which literally means to crawl. Scrupulous candidates were “crawling” at night from house to house giving away rice and money. A neighbor confided me the next morning that two candidates came knocking to his house at midnight to give rice. A candidate was seen with a short sidearm tugged in his hips. There goes the gun ban blatantly violated.

Another sinister strategy that has become rampantly unchecked is flying voters. Many of my known voters came to me complaining that someone already voted in their stead. A certain stooge of a candidate would offer bribe money to a voter. To ensure the voter would really vote for the stooge’s candidate, the voter would pretend he is illiterate and that an assistor of the stooge would “assist” the voter to fill up the ballot. Thereafter, the voter gets paid the bribe money by the stooge.

NB: Pictures courtesy of LOVE ISABELA at http://www.facebook.com/loveisabela

FIRE IN THE HOLE!

2011-09-11T05:16:00.000-07:00

It seems as if I'm living in a tunnel. It's dark when I get up; it's dark when I go home. I keep moving straight ahead but there's no sign of light.- Scott Turow in One L

My life as a law student has never been an easy battle. Ask any law student, and you’ll probably get a similar sentiment. For one, it is an entirely different academic arena, far from the usual classroom routine. I do not have room for belittlement but society has its own way of giving high regard to law students and I take pride that I am one of them. The respect and courtesy that society has bestowed upon people on the legal profession, you must realize, is earned not from the time they passed the bar and become full pledged lawyers, but beckons from the time they were as mere students of law. Thus, the stories of lawyers are never limited to discussions how they passed the bar and how they eventually practiced law. The account usually starts from a law student’s grueling experiences to earn the respect and courtesy of his community and the society as a whole.

I am now a mere law student taking the time to share my own story of battling to keep such respect. Whether we like it or not, fellow law students, the respect is earned in the very four corners of our classroom. The community may be so little for the meantime, right? But what big thing didn’t come from small ones? And so, this is my own his story…

In order to survive law school you have to have a one track mind, read, read and read (The 3 R’s). Sometimes there seems no escape to this book-driven life. In my case, I have to set aside my social life if any, even religious activities, just to devote more time reading voluminous cases being assigned to us by our professors. Not to mention the countless law "hornbooks" prescribed depending on the choices and temperament of the law professors. But the more dangerous and fearful path that each and every law student must take is during class recitations. Hurdling class recitations is both a frightful and fulfilling experience. Fright comes in when you come unprepared. Fulfillment, which is usually, elusive, comes after winning over your most feared professors. No one can escape the sting of recitations. Law students, in fact even most established lawyers I know, have their own story of recitation mishaps to tell… I am happy to tell mine.

As the clock hits six in the evening, I can already hear helpless souls shouting, “Fire in the hole!” The battle, I mean classes in law school usually starts at this time. The battle begins, those words kept imprinting on my head. My mind at the moment has succumbed on thinking when will the battle between me and my professor end. Despite the perpetuity, the adrenalin rush remains at its highest level…

I can still vividly remember when I was taking up my environmental law subject and I was called to recite a case. That fateful case was Cruz v. Sec. of DENR dealing with the constitutionality of the IPRA law. So I hurriedly stood up and recite the facts of the case by heart. As I was about to discuss the ruling of the court, the professor suddenly interrupted me and started to fire questions indiscriminately. While still armored and battling, I seem a helpless victim for a while. The adrenalin kept rushing in as I search for more answers in my head. Most of the questions are really tough and the professor was acting as if he wrote the dissenting opinion of that case. After his unwritten dissenting opinion, he out of the blue asked me, “Mr. Bonoan are you reading the book of Zaide?” He was referring to a Philippine historian, Gregorio Zaide, a suggested reference in the undergraduate course. (By the way my professor preferred Constantino’s book on Philippine history.) I stood my ground and proudly said yes to the question. Although my answer would be a big NO, I had no choice but to defend my argument regarding the benefits of Spanish inquisition otherwise I would be in a limbo. I must not quiver at this point, I told myself over and over again.

Obviously, he was not satisfied with my answers. He asked me to simply sit down and called on another student. I was in total devastation because I studied the case from all possible angles. Still, I failed to impress him. As i sat down back to my chair, I wondered, is he a full blooded communist? or perhaps a member of a radical organization espousing judicial activism?

It was only later that I came to know that my professor was one of the lawyers who argued before the Supreme Court regarding that very particular case. He was a bar placer and a graduate of the prestigious UP College of Law.

On second thought, I felt vindicated because I have engaged in a swordfight with him, although I ended up being slaughtered to death. From then on, I bowed not to limit my readings simply on law books but more so with the lessons of history and other disciplines. I also realized that by dissecting court decisions, one must have a full appreciation of the arguments put forward by both parties involve in a particular case. I must admit retribution came upon me…well, that’s good at some point. There will always be a next time.

My next terrible experience would be the time when I was taking up Tort law under a Jesuit educated professor. Tort law is a very interesting subject because it deals with, well mostly with accidents and mishaps, and the facts of every case is fascinating and fun to read. So here it goes, my own mishap.

It was a Tuesday evening, and the professor came in late so I was busy gossiping before he arrived. So again alarming voices shouting “Fire in the hole!” were echoing all over the classroom. It is a common practice in law school to at least check the background of professors, like his teaching style or the manner he conducts recitations. It’s an armor you must keep. For instance whether a particular professor is strict with the facts of the case including the minute details or the important dates cited in each case. This time I failed to ask my classmates about these essential preliminary questions. The fateful case this time was Picart v. Smith. This is a very old case yet a landmark for tort law, penned by an American jurist in the name of Justice Street. Initially, the case was easy to understand because the ruling is quite simple, but the facts and language used are quite complicated. When my professor flashed the class cards, I never expected that I would be the first one to recite. When my name was called, confidently I stood up but never expected that I would be reciting the Picart case. Unfortunately, my professor uttered this prophetic line, “Chris Bonoan, where are you? Oh there you are! Please recite Picart v. Smith.” I said to myself: Oh my God, Lord why have you forsaken me? Of course it was too late to ask this question, so I mumbled and tried to recite the case as best as I could. However upon reaching the difficult portion of that case, my professor asked me to visualize the case. He asked me to approach the blackboard and draw the location of the car and the calesa, and show how the accident happened. We spent at least 30 minutes of his precious time trying to understand the case. Unfortunately, I just could not hit the mark. He suddenly became impatient. Who could not be, I was consuming more than the time allowed for each case. His face grew sour as my voice trembled. Finally, he said, and again, “Sit down Chris.” I was really embarrassed and bowed to read the case again, again and again when I reached the confines of my room.

My classmates definitely had a good laugh with my shocking and unforgettable experience that night. (Right Atty. G?) Good thing for me, they had worse! My professor in Tort law class later on became one of my good friends, constantly monitoring my performance in school. It is only this time when he admitted that I am one of his favorite student. He revealed that I never failed to amaze him with the way I discuss and analyze cases with him even in the other subjects. My instant reaction will have to be, “Sir, it all started with Picart,” and both of us just laughed.

As I said, there will always be a next time guys. But not too many next times. We have to earn the respect right now and not next time. We can always have room for that one time, and maybe another though.

FEATURED ARTICLE: PRIVACY AND THE BAN ON CONTRACEPTIVES

2011-06-22T19:17:00.000-07:00

The author, Atty.Ernani Diaz Bonoan, is an alumnus of Silliman University. He is currently a practicing lawyer based in Cagayan de Oro City.

In my previous article I posit the view that reproductive freedom is a protected right under the right to liberty of the due process clause of the Constitution (Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution). Equally relevant on the issue of reproductive freedom is the right to privacy of each individual whether married or single. This is so because right to privacy is rooted on the concept of liberty as well. In the words of a learned jurist: “Liberty in the constitutional sense must mean more than freedom from unlawful governmental restraint; it must include privacy as well, if it is to be a repository of freedom. The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom.” Privacy, moreover, covers reproductive freedom “for if privacy is to mean anything it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” (Eisenstadt vs. Baird [405 US 438]).

One of the cherished rights protected by our Constitution is the right to privacy or the right to be let alone. While not explicitly mentioned in our Constitution, its existence is recognized in our jurisdiction. In the Philippine judicial landscape, this right was articulated in the leading case of Morfe vs. Mutuc (G.R. No. L-20387, January 31, 1968). Following the trodden path of its American counterpart, our own Supreme Court acknowledged that the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that create a zone of privacy. The Court, citing the seminal case of Griswold vs. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479 [1965]), quoted with approval the following disquisition of Justice Douglas thus:

"Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers 'in any house' in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.' The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."'

After referring to various American Supreme Court decisions, Justice Douglas continued: "These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition is a legitimate one."

The Griswold case invalidated a Connecticut statute which made the use of contraceptives a criminal offense on the ground of its amounting to an unconstitutional invasion of the right of privacy of married persons; rightfully it stressed "a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees." It has wider implication though. The constitutional right to privacy has come into its own. So it is likewise in our jurisdiction. The right to privacy as such is accorded recognition independently of its identification with liberty; in itself, it is fully deserving of constitutional protection.
Indeed, the Court acknowledged that the “right to be left alone” is “the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." Consequently, the existence of this right to privacy was reaffirmed as fundamental right in Ople vs. Torres (G.R. No. 127685, June 23, 1998). Again, following Griswold vs. Connecticut (supra), Justice Reynato Puno writing for the Court declared that “if we extend our judicial gaze we will find that the right of privacy is recognized and enshrined in several provisions of our Constitution.”

Significantly, our adaption of Griswold, the first case in which the constitutional right to privacy was explicitly recognized, involved a constitutional challenge on a law banning access to contraceptives. The factual milieu reveals that Connecticut passed a law which bans the use of “any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing contraception.” The law likewise criminalizes the act of any person “who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another” in the commission of the foregoing offense. The avowed purpose of the statute according to Connecticut’s counsel Thomas Clark is to reduce the chances of immorality and to act as a deterrent to sexual intercourse outside marriage. Estelle Griswold together with Dr. C. Led Buxton opened a birth control clinic and started to distribute and advise married couples on the proper use of contraceptives. Three days after opening their clinic Griswold and Buxton were arrested. When the case was finally elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court the law was struck down as unconstitutional as it amounts to unwarranted intrusion upon the zone of privacy of married couples. This zone of privacy, according to Justice Douglas, is created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees” including the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth amendments, all of which “have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” The Court noted that the law denying couples access to contraceptives “operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife x x x a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees.” For the Court, the existence of the so called zone of privacy protected “notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship”. Consequently, the Court rhetorically asked:

“Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.”

In view of this, there is no question that an absolute ban on the use of contraceptives would be an infringement of the privacy rights of married couples. A law criminalizing the use of contraceptives is too broad and sweeping in its scope that it unnecessarily infringes on marital privacy.

It is quiet significant that the decision in Griswold revolves around the privacy right of married couples. There is nothing explicit therein which extend to unmarried individuals the right to use contraceptives. However in the case of Eisenstadt v. Baird [405 US 438] the same right granted to married couples was extended to unmarried individuals. The ruling in Eisenstadt was groundbreaking in the sense that it established the right of unmarried people to possess contraceptives on the same basis as married couples. By implication, the decision acknowledged the right of unmarried couples to engage in non-procreative sexual congress. In its logical sense, Eisenstadt impliedly concludes that all sex between consenting adults is constitutionally protected. Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan declared that to deprive unmarried individuals access to contraceptives while allowing the same for married couples would violate the equal protection clause. Anent the issue of privacy, Brennan succinctly wrote:

If under Griswold the distribution of contraceptives to married persons cannot be prohibited, a ban on distribution to unmarried persons would be equally impermissible. It is true that in Griswold the right of privacy inhered in the marital relationship. Yet the marital couple is not an independent entity with a mind and heart of its own, but an association of two individuals, each with separate intellectual and emotional make up. If the right to privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.

In fine, it is crystal clear that under the various provisions of the Bill of Rights, the choice to use contraceptives rest on married couples. The State cannot, in an attempt to uphold its own moral viewpoint, deprive married couples of their constitutional right to choose and decide for themselves the issue parenthood. Further, single and unmarried adults, may invoke their right to liberty and privacy to consummate their bonds in intimate sexual conduct even for non-procreative purpose. As long as these are done consensually, their sexual behavior does not contravene fundamental state policy as contained in the Constitution (Concerned Employee v. Glenda Espiritu Mayor, A.M. No. P-02-1564, November 23, 2004). For in the words of the High Court in the case of City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr. (G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005): x x x be it stressed that their consensual sexual behavior does not contravene any fundamental state policy as contained in the Constitution. Adults have a right to choose to forge such relationships with others in the confines of their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows persons the right to make this choice. Their right to liberty under the due process clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government, as long as they do not run afoul of the law. Liberty should be the rule and restraint the exception.

Ed. Note: The author would like to acknowledge the treatises on Philippine Political Law [2002 Edition] and Constitutional Law [2003 Edition] of Justice Isagani A. Cruz in the discussion of police power and the supremacy of the Constitution in the first part of this article published in Goldstar Daily (Mindanao) dated June 23, 2011.

LIBERTY, PRIVACY, REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM AND THE BAN ON CONTRACEPTIVES: A CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE (PART 1)

2011-06-21T19:08:00.000-07:00

The major opposition to the Reproductive Health Bill is anchored on the provisions involving artificial contraceptives. Those who condemn the bill espouse the view that contraceptives are intrinsically evil and making them readily available would promote immorality and promiscuity. Moreover, it is contended that by making contraceptives accessible to the masses would wittingly or unwittingly justify abortion. Contraceptives, they say, can be used as abortifacient to curtail life thus subverting the right to life of the innocent and helpless. In fact there is a recent move in the Senate led by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile for the enactment of the Protection of the Unborn Child Act. Senate Bill No. 2497 seeks to counter the RH Bill by prohibiting all forms of contraceptives in the country for the purpose of protecting the unborn from conception.

Interestingly, the proponents of the Reproductive Health Bill vehemently deny that it seeks to legalize abortion. They aver that there is nothing in the proposed measure that provides for the legalization of abortion. On the contrary, they further claim that the bill is pro-life as it will prevent infant and child deaths. In the same vein, the measure seeks larger investments in children’s health and education and better health outcomes for children. Ironically, other religious groups like the Iglesia ni Cristo and the United Church of Christ voiced their support on the RH bill. These religious sects undeniably shun abortion, but still found nothing in the measure which sanctions abortion. For these groups, reproductive health does not necessarily mean abortion and use of contraceptives is not equivalent to killing the innocent.

Frankly, the advent of the Protection of the Unborn Child Act is a welcome development since it accentuates the legal ramification of absolute ban on contraceptives. The Protection of the Unborn Child Act puts in proper perspective the legal position of those against the Reproductive Health bill which is total ban on contraceptives. This is in line with the position taken by most clerics who claim that contraceptives are intrinsically evil. Indeed, at first brush the Protection of the Unborn Act seems laudable insofar as it seeks to protect the unborn, however a more thorough reflection of the means used in achieving its objective would show that it suffers from constitutional infirmity.

It may be recalled that to sustain the validity of any police power measure it must be shown that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require its exercise and the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. In short, there must be a concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful method.[1] It must also be evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights can work. More importantly, a reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the measure and the means employed for its accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the public interest, personal rights and those pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded.[2] Consequently, even if the purpose of the law is within the scope of the police power of the State, the same will still be annulled if the means employed contravenes the Constitution. Indeed, as the fundamental and paramount law of the land, no act shall be valid however noble its intentions if it contravenes the Constitution. The Constitution must ever remain supreme and all must bow to its mandate.[3] Accordingly, the lawful objective of any law must be pursued through a lawful method. Absent a lawful means, the police measure must be struck down as it amounts to an arbitrary infringement of private rights.[4] Thus in Association of Small Landowners vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform[5] the High Court observed:

One of the basic principles of the democratic system is that where the rights of the individual are concerned, the end does not justify the means. It is not enough that there be a valid objective; it is also necessary that the means employed to pursue it be in keeping with the Constitution. Mere expediency will not excuse constitutional shortcuts. There is no question that not even the strongest moral conviction or the most urgent public need, subject only to a few notable exceptions, will excuse the bypassing of an individual's rights. It is no exaggeration to say that a person invoking a right guaranteed under Article III of the Constitution is a majority of one even as against the rest of the nation who would deny him that right.

The foregoing disquisition gains significance in view of the fact that the issue(s) involved in this debate goes to the fundamental question of life, liberty and privacy. For at the heart of the controversy over contraceptives lies the fundamental question of whether the State can enact a law denying married couples or unmarried individuals access to contraceptives. Otherwise stated, can the State deprive the individual, married or single, the right to decide matters so fundamental as the question whether to bear or beget a child.

THE RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM: A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Guided by the foregoing considerations, I begin with the proposition that neither the State nor the Church can dictate or impose upon any person what mode of family planning method or methods to pursue. The choice whether to use contraceptives rest primarily on individuals and couples. This is so because the decision to use (or not to use) contraceptives lies within the right to personal liberty and privacy afforded each individual under the fundamental law. It should be underscored that liberty under the Constitution is not confined to freedom from bodily restraint. The Constitution protects “liberty of the person both in its spatial and in its more transcendent dimensions.”[6] Chief Justice Reynato Puno in his concurring opinion in Ang Ladlad LGBT vs. COMELEC[7] explains the concept of liberty thus: “Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to the liberty protected by the due process clause. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Clearly liberty includes individual decision-making on intimate questions of marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationship, child rearing, and education.[8] As succinctly held in Lawrence v. Texas[9]:

These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under the compulsion of the State.

In fine, liberty embraces reproductive freedom which posits the view that everyone has a right to reproductive self determination-meaning the right to decide for themselves when and how often one becomes a parent or the right to become a parent at all. This is the underlying philosophy that animates the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill. The measure is anchored on the principle that everyone has the right to reproductive self-determination – meaning the right to decide when and how often one becomes a parent or the right not to be a parent at all.[10]

[1] Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Srvices, G.R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009.
[2] White Light Corp. v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 29, 2009.
[3] Isagani Cruz, Philippine Political Law, (Central Lawbook Publishing Co.; Quezon City, 2002 Edition), pp. 12-13.
[4] Isagani A. Cruz, Constitutional Law (Central Lawbook Publishing Co; Quezon City, 2003 Edition), p. 56.
[5] Association of Small Landowners vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742, July 14, 1989.
[6] Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
[7] Ang Ladlad LGBT v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010.
[8] City of Manila et. al. v. Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr., et. al., G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005.
[9] Supra, note 6.
[10] See Explanatory Note of the “The Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2010. This is the version of Albay Representative Edcel Lagman.

ED.NOTE: The author,Atty. Ernani Diaz Bonoan is a partner of the Rebolos, Sanchez & Bonoan Law Office in Cagayan de Oro City.

POSTPONEMENT OF THE ARMM ELECTIONS: TO BE OR NOT TO BE?

2011-03-26T05:59:00.000-07:00

A week ago, after the President has certified the urgency of House Bill No.4146, the lower house has finally voted in favor for the postponement of the ARMM elections. Said Bill seeks to postpone the ARMM elections and allow the President to appoint officers-in-charge during the vacancy. The Bill, among others, is purposed to synchronize the ARMM elections with the regular national and local elections. In this way, all elected officials, whether in the ARMM region or the rest of the Philippines, shall ascend to their posts, ideally, all at the same time.

The right to self-governance and self-determination has always been the elusive dream of every Muslim in Southern Mindanao. For this reason, the 1987 Constitution ordained the establishment of a regional autonomy in Muslim Mindanao which was supposed to be the messianic solution to the aged quest for Muslim autonomy. Thus, Congress enacted RA 6734 otherwise known as “The Organic Act of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao,” which calls for extensive autonomous powers to be exercised by the regional government. I say ‘extensive’ because the organic act speaks of fiscal autonomy, jurisdiction over ancestral domain, ancestral lands, agrarian reform, urban and rural planning, economy and natural resources, public order, education, science and technology, and even sports development. The regional government is also provided with an annual subsidy from the national government of at least 12 billion, 700 Million for its public works and 800 Million local funds derived from internal revenue collections.

Yet in spite of the enormous support coming from the national government, ARMM remains to be a huge failure. Every election held under it had been marred with violence and intervention from national officials. Worse still, even the incumbent Governor of ARMM calls for its abolition because it did not meet the haughty objectives of the Organic Act. At the committee meetings, representative of the DILG cited grounds why the PNOY administration supports postponement of the ARMM elections. Accordingly, during the interregnum, it would be the best time to introduce good governance in the system by addressing the volatile political atmosphere of the ARMM. In fact said Bill has a provision which mandates the appointed members to conduct a study and review of RA 9054 (The amendatory act which expanded the coverage of the Organic law.) and submit recommendations to Congress within a specified time-frame. More than this, the 2-year transition period will give enough time to initiate electoral reforms in the region by cl eansing the ARMM voters’ list. There is also the general apprehension that the peace process might be affected if the ARMM election will push through this year.

True or not, I have no quarrel with the objectives of said measure. My main concern however, is how it can pass the litmus test of legal scrutiny. Here are some of my arguments against HR 4146.

It is my view that HB 1446 violates RA 6734, the ARMM’s organic act. First, the authority of the President to appoint OICs during the supposed transition period raises legal doubts among lawyer-legislators in the lower house. Section 4 of said Bill provides that during the transitory period, the President shall appoint officers-in-charge who will take over the functions of the incumbent elective officials of the ARMM. Note that nowhere in the provisions of the organic act and RA 9054 grant the president the power to appoint OICs in case there is postponement of elections.(This is where 'residual power' comes in, more on this later.) Nor is there a provision both in the Organic Act or RA 9054 that allows postponement or cancellation of the ARMM elections to begin with. But even assuming there is, still the authority of the President to fill temporary vacancies in elective offices by appointment is without legal basis if viewed in the context of autonomy. (Note that as a general rule, Congress has the power to postpone elections.)To vest the president with appointing authority not otherwise provided by the Organic Act is a patent intrusion to the autonomy granted by the Constitution to the autonomous regions. Is the principle of autonomy therefore, stated in the constitution, a big joke? Article 10 Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution explains the nature of the powers of the President over autonomous regions: THE PRESIDENT SHALL EXERCISE GENERAL SUPERVISION OVER AUTONOMOUS REGIONS TO ENSURE THAT LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED. Yes, the President has the power to ensure that subordinate officers execute and act within existing laws. If you read the records of the 1986 Constitutional Commissions, the phrase as “may be provided by law” was deliberately removed from the original text because it gives Congress the power to expand the nature of the power of the President over autonomous region that goes beyond “general supervision.” Clearly, the appointing authority given to the President by HR 4146 is not premised on the power of ‘general supervision’ but control. Thus said Bill runs contrary not only to the intent of the constitution but to the very principle of autonomy itself as envisioned by the Constitution.

In a republican and democratic state, are we suppose to favor appointments rather than democratic elections? Let us go beyond the lofty objectives of HR 4146 and look deeper. In essence what is given to the President here is the authority to substitute the judgment of the people to freely choose their leaders. In essence, the Bill has the effect of substituting the choice of the people for the choice of one man-the President. I would like to emphasize that the will of the people can never be superseded even with the noblest of intentions coming from a highly popular president.

De Lima's Dilemma. I have the highest respect for DOJ Secretary Leila De Lima, both in her capacity as a public servant and a lawyer. But I believe that she stretched the law too far by saying that the basis of the President’s power to appoint officers-in-charge under HR 4146 is ‘residual unstated powers.’ To the layman, residual powers refer “to the powers of the President which are not limited to what are expressly enumerated in the article on the Executive Department and in the scattered provisions of the Constitution.” Cleary, if the power in question is neither judicial nor legislative, it therefore belongs to the executive, and ultimately to the President. Appointing power is undoubtedly executive in nature. What jarred my databank, assuming it is valid argument, is the fact that it is the House of Representatives, and not the President himself, who has invoked such reserved powers. When the Court in Marcos enunciated that the President has ‘residual unstatedl powers,” I take this to mean that it is only He, to the exclusion of others, who can invoke and activate this power when needed. I’m not quite sure however, if Justice Secretary De Lima has cited Marcos v. Manglapus to justify her position. In any case, I have to agree that by way of exception, the President has residual powers but only to the extent that it will not violate explicit constitutional provisions. All governmental powers, including that of the President must conform to the limitations setforth in the constitution. Here's a thought: Can residual unstated powers outweigh expressed constitutional provisions and case law on local autonomy? Can residual powers outweigh the right of the people to exercise their right of suffrage? These and more make the argument of residual powers all too desperate, if not a cop-out.

And so what legal justification do the proponents have in pushing for the passage of HR 4146? Are they saying that we are in fact amending the Organic Act? That too is legally impossible under pertinent laws and they know it. For instance, nowhere in the provisions of the Organic law nor its amending law provides for the synchronization of ARMM elections with national and local elections. But for purposes of discussion let us tackle the role of Congress on the amendatory process of the Organic act.

CAN CONGRESS PASS A LAW AMENDING ANY PROVISION OF THE ORGANIC ACT? In Pandi v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No.116850, April 11, 2002.) the Supreme Court ruled in this wise, “An ordinary statute, whether general or special, cannot amend any provision of the organic act. Its creation or amendment can only be through a plebiscite for the purpose.”

What then is the procedure for amendment or revision of the organic law and RA No.9054? Both the organic law and the amending act lodge the power to initiate amendment or revision on the Regional Assembly. Or it may also call for a Regional Consultative Commission to propose the amendment or revision. In any case, the amendment or revision shall require the approval of the Congress of the Philippines by a vote of two- thirds (2/3) of the Members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate voting separately. Section 7 of HB 4146 states in unequivocal terms that, “The appointed members of the Regional Legislative Assembly of the ARMM shall conduct a study and a review of Republic Act 9054 (amending law) and submit recommendations to the Congress of the Philippines within six months from their assumption into office.” Here I subscribe to the view of Congressman Rufus Rodriguez. He pointed out that this specific provision surreptitiously amends the Organic Act and its amending law for it allows appointive officials to conduct a study on the Organic Act while it is the Regional Assembly, composed of elective officials, who has the power to initiate amendments.

When does amendment or revision shall become effective? Both the Organic Act and RA No.9054 clearly provide: Any amendment to or revision of this Organic Act shall become effective only when approved by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose, which shall be held not earlier than sixty (60) days or later than ninety (90) days after the approval of such amendment or revision. Thus, since some of the provisions of HR 4146 are in the nature of amendments, the same is illegal for being contrary to the provisions of the Organic Act and RA 9054. Again, the power to initiate amendments rests solely on the Regional Assembly of the ARMM and not with Congress. Albeit Congress plays an important role with regard to the process of amendments, it should be remembered that Congress is deemed inutile sans the initiative or proposal of the Regional Assembly. Moreover, the law is clear, amendments to the Organic Act can only become effective when approved by a majority of the vote cast in a plebiscite.

The ball game is far from over. Nor can it be said that the issue is already moot. I’m not inclined to believe that said measure can withstand scrutiny in the Senate. In an interview, Senator Bongbong Marcos expressed the view that postponement of elections should be frowned upon by the legislative branch. I guess that gives us a hint of what would be the fate of HR 4146 in the days to come. More than this, the passage of this measure does not speak well of President Aquino’s leadership. When this agenda was thrown into the plenary a week before, the majority could not even master a quorum. It’s just ironic that after the impeachment saga of Merci, all things seem to fall places for HB 4146. I am just newbie in the House of Representatives but something tells me that HB 4146 and the impeachment were symbiotically played. I just can’t clearly draw the line for now.

PS:
On June 6, 2011, after heated debates, the Senate has approved the Bill postponing this year’s ARMM elections to 2013. 13 Senators voted in favor while 7 voted against postponement. The two chambers then will convene in a bicameral conference to reconcile both versions and transmit it respectively back to the House and the Senate for ratification. After ratification by both chambers, the reconciled bill will be transmitted to the President for signature. I surmise that after approval by the President, timely petitions will be filed before the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of said ‘law.’ This writer maintains his position that said Bill is unconstitutional for reasons discussed above. (June 7, 2011)

A Wounded General

2011-02-13T20:58:00.000-08:00

The unfortunate death of former Chief of Staff General Angelo T. Reyes has caused the public to doubt whether Senate investigations are really designed to help make good laws or are they being used by some legislators as springboard for grandstanding and/or personal vendetta. When TV cameras start to roll and the hearings are simulcast live in a cable channel, is it really all about the right of the public to know on matters of national importance? It is my honest view that the recent legislative investigation on the ‘plea bargaining’ controversy has been poorly conducted by the Senate. Some senators were flagrantly grandstanding and obviously in a power-tripping mode.

Apparently, when the late Secretary was invited to appear in the Senate inquiries he had no inkling whatsoever that he was to be grilled by Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Antonio Trillianes. Going there, he was assured that the inquiry would center on the anomalous and highly irregular plea bargaining agreement entered into between former AFP comptroller General Carlos Garcia and the office of the Ombudsman. In fact, according to Retired Commodore Rex Robles in his eulogy last night recounted that the Secretary was not comfortable being called upon as source person in this matter. He was worried he could not contribute much. He attended otherwise, as we all have witnessed. Sitting there, he never thought he had more things to worry upon later on. Much to his chagrin, Senator Jinggoy Estrada had more business than just inviting him. That day had all the elements of a telenovela episode. Soap operas will never lose vengeance and retribution. It’s a plot we adopt even in real life. Even in the Senate, unfortunately.

Coming out in a wheelchair, the melodramatic mood slowly set in as the curious public patiently waited for what he had to say. Of course, the Senate is no neophyte when it comes to star or surprise witnesses. Remember Clarissa Ocampo? All had their time to shine. All had their time to tell their stories. And so it was Colonel George Rabusa’s time, a former budget officer of the AFP and incidentally, a kumpare of Secretary Reyes. Admittedly not coming with clean hands, this star witness declared that he did not only help in squandering the AFP funds but he also gained from it. And now that karma has found its way to his life, he was now ready to squeal it all out. After brief parliamentary incantations from the Senators, and a few sketches on the inner-workings on the AFP, the plea bargaining agreement which was on the agenda that day, was successfully set aside. Now, all were yakking on the rotten system of money squandering and funds conversions within the AFP. Out of a sudden the clueless general was being accused, among others, of accepting pabaon and pasalubong during his stint as AFP Chief of Staff. Rabusa recounted, that due to the pabaon system, the late Secretary was 50M richer when he left the AFP. All of a sudden, all had their fingers pointing at the late general. In a desire to redeem himself, he pleaded the committee if he could ask a couple of questions for Col. Rabusa. He said, “Ako po ba’y naging ganid? Ako po ba’y naging suwapang? Ako po ba’y nanghingi?” The late Secretary obviously felt like a helpless lamb before a group of cannibals wanting to gnaw his every limb. He was like gasping for his breath when he said, “Mr. Chairman it is my reputation that is at stake here.” But was smashed to death when Senator Trillianes said, “No, you do not have any reputation to protect here.” Now, the general was facing a battle without a battalion of soldiers to call on to. He was facing a war alone and his military instincts proved futile to his avail. Unlike him, his enemies were all ready for war that day. That day however ended like any other Senate inquiry…all media hype, endless bickering, tainted reputation and a public clamoring for more.

In a later interview, Rabusa, with some hesitations but with insistence upon Karen Davila, added that the general’s wife and his family also allegedly benefited tremendously from these corrupt practices in the AFP. Col. Rabusa also recounted in a casual manner how he splurged AFP funds by ingratiating the general’s wife with travel allowances upon her request or when he treats occasionally the general’s sons for a boy’s night-out. All of these happened when the late general was the head of the AFP and GMA was commander-in-chief. After these revelations, public outrage was now evident in all social networking sites. And the ill feelings of the public towards the late Secretary, as he was associated with the infamous administration of GMA, was revived again.

Personally, I know where Senator Trillianes is coming. His passion and resolute commitment to reform the ranks of the AFP has caused him jail time and alienation from the public. Being one of the leaders of the 2003 Oakwood mutiny, Senator Trillianes is well-versed with issues of corruption in the AFP. Just like the sentiments of the RAM boys during post martial law years, the idealist senator blames the high ranking officials of the AFP for causing an indelible blot in the name and reputation of the military as an institution. Of course, we all know he was too fed up of the vicious cycle of corruption in government, the AFP in particular, the very institution he belongs in. This however is neither a justification nor an excuse of the way he acted and ridiculed the person of the late Secretary. He must remember that as a legislator, the Senate is a different battlefield.

Very briefly, let me point out the constitutional underpinnings of a legislative inquiry. In our constitutional scheme, Congress is vested with the totality of legislative powers. Basic is the rule that its primary tasked is to pass laws. That’s the general rule, at least. But the constitution made it sure that pursuant to its law-making function, certain incidental powers are needed so that Congress may accomplish its purpose. Among the incidental powers of Congress is the power to conduct legislative investigation in aid of legislation. But what is the purpose behind legislative inquiries vis a vis legislation? In one of the landmark cases on the subject the Supreme Court opined that, “A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information ─ which is not frequently true─ recourse must be made to others who possess it.” Thus, the 1987 Constitution under Article VII Sec. 21 expressly provides that, “The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.” It was only under the 1973 Constitution, and of course the 1987 Constitution, that the power of legislative inquiry has found its place as an explicit constitutional provision. This is not to say however that such power did not exist under the 1935 Constitution. Even before, although there is no provision in the 1935 Constitution explicitly granting Congress the power to investigate, the rule was such power can be inferred from the express power of legislation.

Just like any other power, the power to investigate is likewise susceptible to abuse if placed in the hands of irresponsible leaders. Time and again, we decry the conduct of legislative investigations. Witnesses were unfairly treated and subjected to public humiliation. Some egoistic legislators for obvious reasons tend to intimidate witnesses by citing them in contempt if they refused to cooperate. It is for this reason that under the 1987 Constitution the prevailing view is that said provision is not to grant power but in fact to limit its exercise. Specifically for the protection of persons appearing before legislative investigations, three limitations are in place: (1) it must be in aid of legislation; (2) it must be in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure; (3) the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.

The legislative power of Congress is broad and well-nigh unlimited covering almost everything within its reach subject only to the limitations set forth in the Bill of Rights and the constitution itself. On the basis of this premise, the power of investigation which flows directly from the express power of legislation can be understood in this light. The first limitation that the legislative inquiry must be ‘in aid of legislation’ speaks of the requirement by which the legislative body or any of its committees acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter pertinent to the inquiry. It does not say much actually towards the protection of witnesses or resource persons summoned to appear before any legislative investigation. Because of the doctrine of separation of powers, the long standing rule is that every legislative investigation must be presumed in ‘aid of legislation’ except in cases which comes under the expanded jurisdiction clause of the Supreme Court─ when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of Congress in the exercise of its powers.

The second limitation that the legislative investigation must be ‘in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure,’ talks about the basic requirement of due process under the bill of rights. Here while the constitution recognizes the power of Congress to make its own internal rules the same must be published so as not to offend rights of private person appearing before legislative inquiries. Publication is an essential requirement of due process for it gives notice to private persons whose rights might be affected during investigations.

The last limitation on legislative investigation is that “the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.” According top Fr. Bernas, “this is just another way of saying that legislative investigation must be subject to the limitations placed by the Constitution on governmental action. And since all governmental action must be exercised subject to constitutional limitations, principally found in the Bill of Rights, this third limitation really creates no new constitutional right.” In any event, the rights protected therein cover the right against self-incrimination, right to privacy, right against unreasonable searches and seizure and of course, the right of due process.

I do not dispute the fact that plea bargaining agreement is a legitimate subject for legislative investigation in aid of legislation. Remember the “Brunei beauties” controversy in the 90s? As absurd as it was, that too was presumed to be in aid of legislation. Certainly, massive corruption in the government like in the AFP deserves proper investigation. But Senators must be circumspect and knowledgeable of the fact that they wield awesome powers because of the institution they belong. Apart from the power of legislative investigation, legislators too are granted parliamentary immunity for any speech or utterances made within the halls of Congress. Thus, Article VI Sec.11 states in part, “No member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.” Pursuant to this provision it appears that a senator has unbridled right to question or even malign a resource person with impunity. For this he cannot be charged in any court of law for his libelous remarks against a witness appearing before legislative inquiries. (Will the majority of the Senate punish Senator Antonio Trillianes for his below the belt remarks during the inquiry when he said, “No you don’t have any reputation to protect,”? I doubt it!)

I have yet to see the published rules of the Senate blue ribbon committee. In an interview, Senator Joker Arroyo former chair of said committee, laments that the rules of the committee should be amended to ensure that the right of a resource person libeled during a hearing will be protected. It appears that the present rules of the Senate blue ribbon committee is patterned after the 1935 Constitution which clearly did not provide for the protection and respect of the rights of persons being summoned. Hence, under the existing rule, a resource person is prohibited to examine or cross-examine any of its witnesses. “The resource person's right to defend himself on the spot is curtailed. If at all he can exercise it, he does so not because he is entitled to it but by the grace of the chairman, who may even disallow it,” said Senator Joker Arroyo. As mentioned earlier, the express provision on legislative investigation in the 1987 Constitution is not a grant of power but a limit to its exercise. The excesses committed in the past prompted the framers of the 1987 Constitution to erect limitations that may check the abuses inherent in any legislative inquiry.

On that note, I still believe that the Senate inquiry must not in anyway be hindered by this unfortunate death of the Secretary. In fact, while I understand that the family is still in mourning, the Senate must still continue to probe on this matter, even if it needs calling the general’s wife. After all, she benefited from it. However, again I believe certain decorum must be afforded during these investigations. I sincerely believe that because of this tragic event, the Senate must reexamine its rules and guidelines with respect to persons appearing before any legislative investigation. Respect breathes respect.

POSTSCRIPT: Last week, I posted an entry here which alludes more particularly to the death of my beloved father. As I watch the necrological services on cable channel, I cannot but share a tear or two for them. Of course, my brothers and the sons of the Secretary Reyes may not be the same in several aspects with respect to the death of our respective fathers. But I am sure that we share the same sorrow and grief of losing a very loving father. In this level, differences are narrowed down and similarities fall in one category, simply, we are sons who lost a father. It is probably why I understood why Mark Reyes, in his eulogy for his late father, defended him amidst the Secretary’s apparent suicide. He said and emphasized over and over again that his father was a Filipino public servant who tried his best to work in a very flawed system. But while I share the same sentiments of trying to leave a good legacy to his father’s reputation tainted by the recent events, his words did not win me over. In fact, it made me more thinking. Of course, we can always pray he should not have ended his life and defended himself where he could be rightfully heard. In the Senate, you must realize, he did not categorically deny he did not receive any of the pabaon or the pasalubong. In fact, he blurted out a rather ‘double-bladed’ answer when inquired upon. He said he did not ask for it nor did he ask for more, which therefore suggests, that other AFP chiefs may have asked for it or were greedy to ask for more. Come on, 50M pesos was an unimaginable amount especially for soldiers fighting with all-worn out boots or living with a 1000-peso monthly allowance. Again, of course, we all want him to say his piece. If only he did, then maybe, his son would not have to do it for him.

My father was no general, no secretary, did not have any of his father’s educational attainments, but I did not have to defend my father on any occasion- especially at his death. As far as I can recall, our family was overwhelmed with too much good words upon his death. In fact, in my eulogy, what was left for me to share, was how good a father he was to us three. And he was. I bet Secretary Reyes was too. Amidst the controversies, I believe, that must have been a good way to end it. He was a good father. In that battlefield, the young Reyeses can definitely put their names on the line. It was a playing field that they can attest to and that no one, not even "a one single-amoeba" has the right to question.

References:

The 1987 Constitution: A Commentary by Fr.Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ
Philippine Political Law by Justice Isagani A. Cruz
Philippine Daily Inquirer

The next on the rack: "After 100 years. . .What Next?" by Salvador H.Laurel

2010-11-12T21:09:00.000-08:00

This November 29, 2010 marks two momentous events: the 82th birth anniversary of the late Dr. Salvador “Doy” Laurel, Former Vice President of the Republic of the Philippines and the launch of his book, “After 100 Years…WHAT NEXT,” the last on the rack. Ceremonies will be held on November 29, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. at the Turf Room, Manila Polo Club, Makati City.

Here’s a glimpse on “After 100 Years…WHAT NEXT,” culled from the Prologue written by Celia Diaz Laurel:

Doy wrote “After 100 Years…WHAT NEXT” in 1999 after his term as Chairman of the Philippine Centennial Commission came to an end.

The gestation of this book – WHAT NEXT – was however interrupted by the making of two other books “China Update ...2000”,published on September 2000 and “Through Ordeal And Turmoil” which was published in 2002.

A scrupulous critic of his own works he had scribbled many marginal notes on the manuscript which he laid on his desk ready for printing.
Everything came to a halt when he was suddenly taken ill and had to be flown to Stanford, California for treatment. After two months of countless tests he was finally diagnosed to have lymphoma and chemotherapy was prescribed.

June 2003 to January of 2004 were painful and agonizing months for Doy and for those who loved him who stood by him as he bravely fought his last battle. He was lucid to the end. His concern for his country was always foremost in his mind.

He took to scribbling little notes on his yellow pad while he was still able to write. One of them read:

"I am reminded not only of the awesome and humbling reality that all you have is your faith in God and your fighting spirit and the love of family and friends, and the continuing concern of what is happening to our country."

The next time I saw the book was after Doy’s final trip home. I remember dreading to enter our room alone – without him. As I entered our anteroom I felt strongly drawn to his desk. It was as neat as always, but there – sitting in the center of the desktop – was the manuscript of WHAT NEXT – where he had left it.

I sat on his chair and gingerly opened the book and carefully read each page.

In his introduction he wrote:

"What is our vision for the next 100 years? What can we do to realize that vision? The answers will not come easily nor will they be similar.
This book is a modest contribution for the search for answers.
I have endeavored to outline the dominant themes that preoccupy scholars when they think about the future. I am not a futurist and I do not pretend to be one. I have written this book based on the situation I perceive the world and our nation to be in and how I can deal with the realities of the present and of the imponderables of the future. No doubt, writing this book was a 'learning and planning process' in the broadest sense of the words – research, exploration, discovery, education and a sense of participation in the community of concerned citizens who desire 'a brighter, newer, world.'”

As I went on to read from chapter to chapter – I was overwhelmed by the uncanny feeling that Doy had written this book as his legacy to the Filipino people he had sworn to serve. However, more concerned with its safekeeping, I kept it on a shelf along with his other documents.

For six years the manuscript sat idly on a shelf and imprisoned within its pages were the precious thoughts and visions of a man who took the pains of writing the “answers” that he felt could save a nation.
Many times I wanted to publish the book especially when issues that he expounded on in the book were hotly debated upon. But I hesitated.

But now that his 82nd birthday approaches I feel that I must release this book and allow Doy to continue to serve his country through his thoughts and written words.

FISHBROOK (FB)

2010-10-06T05:45:00.000-07:00

Few years ago, I am one of the many fish caught by a net. I am resilient to new things, but the promise of a beautiful and better home endeared me to it. I succumbed to the invitation. I gave in to the offer. Now after being webbed by the net, I land here in Fishbrook. I am happy to belong here really, at first. Rekindling ties with old folks was something to look forward to. But then again, building new ones was more intriguing. You see here in Fishbrook, new batches of fish arrive day by day. Some very calm, some very edgy, some you do not even bother to know and some you do not even think existed. In fact here in Fishbrook, you meet all kinds of fish, whether you like it or not.

I by nature do not love company. Maybe you would ask me, then why choose Fishbrook? Hey, it’s not that I do not like to mingle around. It’s just that I choose the ones to blend with. That’s it. I do not easily blend. I am the type of fish who does not simply go with the waves. In fact, I usually go to the waters less taken. That is why maybe I usually have lesser company. I do not mind really. In fact, I do not even care. And to your question, why Fishbrook? I only have this in mind: I was hoping to find other fish who share the same passion, same principle in life. And yes I did. Here in Fishbrook, only a few understands me. Come to think of it. I do not really want them to understand me, I want them to believe on me.

Enough of myself! Yeah, unlike other folks here, I do not want to talk much about myself. I love Fishbrook, but I leave Fishbrook where it should be. After all, beyond Fishbrook is a much wider and deeper ocean. Ok, ok enough really of myself. I hate talking about myself much that I hate listening to other fish’s me and myself stories. I honestly believe that these kinds of stories should be confined at a very personal level. And since Fishbrook is a community, what should come in and out of it must at some point be relevant to most of its inhabitants.

Here are some Fishbrook folks bitten by this me and myself story bug. Enjoy!

Meet Mr. Pea Ech Dee. I remember the first time we were introduced to each other (in fact, this is what he does every time he is introduced to someone). Hi, I’m Pea Ech Dee, MA, MS, BS, nice to meet you. Huh, I’m such an achiever noh? The capital letters attached to his name made him famous to every one in Fishbrook. He is actually not famous, on second thought. He strives to be popular but always to no avail, if I may say so. On third thought again, he succeeded on one thing, that is, to constantly annoy me. Nope, I do not feel threatened by his intelligence please. I am vexed by the way he begs for appreciation and praises. Imagine, he had to give it to himself because everybody else does not mind? Oh no, please do not get me wrong. I too value education highly. In fact I bet, much higher than he does. But I do not share the same hubris that he has about learned education. One’s intelligence is never measured by our titles. Rather, we are calculated by how we are grown by our education. And only if we have achieved the last can we be accorded the praises that we are yearning for. More so, laudation is earned not encouraged. It is never our duty to constantly remind others that we are good because when we are in fact good, they will on their own commend us for our ways. Right sir?

Now, I introduce Mr. Ceh Vee. This sir and Mr. Pea Ech Dee have some things in common but they are not really close. In fact, I believe that if do they meet they will clash. Why did I say that? Let me give you two people who both feel they are superior beings the other because of his titles, the other for the series of seminars he has attended in his lifetime. At some time, of course, they will exchange credentials one after the other until blood comes out of their self- acclaimed ‘overly used brain neurons.’ Nay, let’s give it to the geniuses. Ok, ok, let’s give Mr. Ceh.Vee. his time to shine. Unlike Mr. Pea Ech Dee, Mr. Ceh Vee. does not even open his mouth when introduced. He does not have to because a comprehensive curriculum vitae always comes in very handy. Here, your eyes will drool over his long list of achievements, educational attainment, lectures attended and every minute detail you never thought can ever be included in a vitae. Your eyes will drool yes. Your mouth may even salivate. You will also be annoyed, I promise. Please Mr. Ceh Vee, take the advice I gave Mr. Pea Ech Dee, laudation is earned not encouraged. It is never our duty to constantly remind others that we are good because when we are in fact good, they will on their own commend us for our ways. More so, Fishbrook you may not realize is simply a stage in our lives. Sometimes, it even becomes fictional at some point. There is a more real and bigger ocean to live outside of Fishbrook. And it is in this deeper ocean where we are truly measured.

My next neighbor is Miss Bum Bastic. She’s a bum. She really doesn’t do anything actually. Oops, that’s actually the problem, she does nothing. And she wants everybody else to know that she does nothing. Am I actually saying anything? Well, take this, Miss Bum Bastic every minute carries a megaphone hanging around her neck. Sometimes when most are pondering over the problems of Fishbrook, she just shout outs, “I’m sad!” (As if anybody cares if she is.) Or “Wala lang!” One may actually ask, does she really have to do that? Well, maybe she has to because when she does not, she will have nothing else to do. Get it? Mind you, her doing nothing comes to an extremely annoying level. One time, she gave each and everyone a picture of herself sporting her new fin cut. At least now, she has something to boast about- that is her newly trimmed fin. F! Fishbrook! Whew! Please forgive me for I have sinned. Just the other day however, this gal surprised me. She out of a sudden screamed, “I’m busy!” Indeed? I instantly became happy! She is finally busy. But this soon faded to my dismay because on second thought, she might not be busy after all because when she is she won’t have the time to actually announce that she is. Ok, she might actually be busy after all. I change my stand. She was indeed busy, busy telling everyone that she’s busy. Buzz! Go get a sensible life gal! Do you even realize that maybe, just maybe, not even one in Fishbrook cares if you are sad? Hmmm, I think I just wasted my time on you. Ok, on to the next please.

Miss Peeh X on the other hand is a bitchy rich fish. If Ms. Bum Bastic is busy with simple joys in her life like when she’s busy or has just sported a new fin cut, Ms. Peeh X is rather on the high end. In fact, Ms. Peeh Ex has already migrated to international waters. But as being fatally bitten by the me and myself bug in Fishbrook, she carried the symptoms even beyond our territory. Just the other day, she has this to say to everyone at Fishbrook: Hey, just got my newly-released Apple Ipond, see that? I tried to rationalize her and her ways and only one pops up in mind: salivate all you who cannot afford! I think no one could blame for it. She made me do it. Well, picture this out, when most in Fishbrook is poor and striving for a better fish life, here comes a filthy rich lass bragging of a fortune most folks, even beyond Fishbrook, could never own in their lifetime. Do not get me wrong, we o understand your joy. We do indeed. However sometimes don’t you think it is much better if everyone can relate to your happiness? More so, it is more blissful to feast on something hardly earned, right? Then maybe all in Fishbrook and beyond can relate and celebrate on your success.

Mr. Sar Dy Nas is our next neighbor to talk about. This pompous mister is one of our new leaders in the community. He likes grandstanding to the truest sense. He is fond of using the Fishbrook stage to convince everyone that he is the messiah of selfless service. In fact, he defends himself so hard that I am convinced that he wants to convince himself too. One time, while taking on his me and myself stories on stage, I stood up and throw straightforward questions at him. To my dismay however, he did not answer even one! The birth of the messiah is just a myth, I convinced everyone in Fishbrook. They branded me for being pessimistic but as always I do not even care. In fact, there was chaos in Fishbrook for a while. Nope, it was not between me and Mr. Sar Dy Nas. In fact, not even once did Mr. SS engage in a fish fight with me The pandemonium was created by Mr. SS’s solid and blind supporters. They rallied for me to be thrown out of Fishbrook as I was according to them one arrogant fish. This continued for a while but not even once was I confronted by Mr. SS. In fact, until it died down, I never heard him defend himself. I can only think of one reason why: He actually cannot.

Ms. Emow is on the limelight now. She is a close ally of Ms. Bum Bastic. However, unlike Ms. Bum Bastic who does almost nothing, all Ms. Emow can do is think of her love life. Every day she would proudly announce to Fishbrook that she is on an “emo mode.” You know what I mean by that. Emotional. Vulnerable. Fragile. Apparently, she and Ms. Bum Bastic share the same megaphone to let everyone now about the status of her love life. Oh did I already say that Ms. Emow has a pep squad that comes with her all the time? Yeah, unfortunately, she has. That’s explain why my annoyance heaped to its highest level. Imagine, I had to deal not only with Ms. Emow everyday but also a bunch of others who are exactly in the same mode that she is! Thus, when she says, “Hay, I miss home...and I miss you too hon” All would answer, “Hay…(downscale voice).” Then one would bravely ask as a follow-up, “Siya ba yan gurl? Wow, after all these years kayo din pala!” Ms. Emow would answer, then one would ask again then another until they fill the waters with all their angst-filled hearts. Verily, they live up to the true meaning of the saying, “tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who are.” I think that Fishbrook deserves better than these things. It may be an avenue for more significant and relevant things right? Don’t you realize that maybe just maybe the things that you do in Fishbrook is in fact insignificant to the lives of other folks here? I believe there are more important things in your life you may want to share in Fishbrook, something sensible perhaps? On second thought, there might actually none. Oops, poor you, that’s really a problem!

Miss Gut Sy is our last guest. Like Mr. Ceh Vee and Pea Ech Dee, Miss Gut Sy claims she is a learned individual. Unlike the others however, she participates in community issues. She too likes to grandstand. And even if she fails a countless time, she stands and fights again. One cannot really avoid admiring her guts. In fact, despite her being so-called learned, her guts is the only left imprinted on my mind. But also not like two other so-called fulfilled and learned gentleman, Miss Gut Sy does not border on anything like she knows everything. However, when it comes to her field, she has the highest regard for herself. She gives it to herself, that’s the funny part. What is funnier is that she cannot even live by what she claims. It would be very hard to delve on details. But I leave this for you to ponder: A wrong answer given is nothing more than a question not answered. In other words, a waste of time and energy.

This has been my everyday battle but I do not regret being webbed by the endearing net for it has indeed placed me in Fishbrook. Fishbrook, despite the existence of these species is a fine community afterall. Here, I meet different kinds of fish, of various species, origin, behavior and inclinations from whom I can all learn something from. I just hope my fellow fish would value Fishbrook and the opportunities it offers to each of its inhabitants as much as I do. It’s not enough that we live everyday but we should live a meaningful day each day. We only have one life to live. We might as well use every minute of it into something that might be of some relevance to others. After all, we all have this community to share with. Go fun swim!

The Sabah Question: Revisited (Part 1)

2010-08-24T00:27:00.000-07:00

“And all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty and jurisdiction…” ─ Article 1, National Territory of the 1987 Constitution

Some time ago, I was privileged to attend an interesting lecture for law students on Public International Law and one of the topics for that day was about the age-old Sabah dispute between the Philippines and Malaysia. The lecture was a mélange of polemical provisions under the 1987 Constitution and relevant principles of international law. Some of my classmates were dumbfounded and clueless for the esteemed lecturer did not touch on the historical antecedents of the Sabah question. Right off the bat he discussed the topic hastily without the benefit of a sneak preview of the factual milieu of the disputed territory. Luckily, I had a slight familiarity on the topic due to my earlier readings on foreign relations long before I entered the halls of law school.

In a nutshell, let me share my belated thoughts on the Sabah question from the context of history and some of the legal questions involved. Taking the historical route, I believe, is the easiest way to look and understand the issue. For it is, in my opinion, the most effective way to capture the panoramic sight of the Philippine position – a brave stand that our forefathers had fought in the spirit of nationalism and devotion for the rule of law.

Precis

Culled from verified sources representing the Philippine claim, the salient facts are as follows:

Sabah, formerly known as North Borneo, was originally owned by the Sultan of Brunei. In 1704, the Sultan of Brunei ceded Sabah to the Sultan of Sulu as a token of gratitude for his aid in suppressing an insurrection. From then on, Sabah became part of the Sultanate of Sulu. Through the years various European countries including Spain, Britain and Netherlands acknowledged the sovereign personality of the Sultan of Sulu as evidenced by a series of treaties concluded between them.

The fateful year was 1878 when a British merchant by the name of Alfred Dent offered to lease Sabah from the Sultan of Sulu. Thereafter, Dent sought the help of his friend by the name of Baron von Overbeck, an Austrian consul-general in Hongkong, to negotiate the lease. At that time, the Sultan was under heavy attack from the Spanish forces in the Sulu archipelago thus, the need of funds to sustain the resistance. Overbeck then seized this opportunity and convinced the Sultan of Sulu of the lease in consideration of a stingy annual rental in the amount of 5,000 Malaysian dollars or equivalent to $1,000 in American dollars. The terms and conditions of the lease agreement were reduced in writing and couched in Malaysian language and in Arabic characters. Overbeck in turn sold his rights under the lease contract in favor of Alfred Dent. After eleven (11) months or so, Dent organized The British North Borneo Company and thereby assigned all his rights and obligations under the 1878 lease contract in favor of said Company. In the following year, the Company was able to secure a Royal Charter from the British government.

Spain and Holland were quick to protest the grant claiming that the British government had already assumed dominion over Sabah by virtue of the Royal Charter. But the British Crown, as represented by the British Prime Minister denied the charge and clarified that the Sultan of Sulu retained sovereignty over Sabah and that the Company was merely exercising “administrative control” in line with the 1878 contract.

Over the years, the Sultan of Sulu was the duly recognized sovereign ruler of Sabah. But on July 10, 1946 exactly six days after the declaration of Philippine Independence, the British government made a sudden turn and claimed that it purchased Sabah from the British North Borneo Company and formally announced that it is now a part of the British dominions. Later on, the British government turned over the annexed territory to one of its colonies, Malaysia.

This was the beginning of the end.

A Question of Foreign Policy

In 1950, then Congressman Diosadado Macapagal together with Congressmen Lacson and Tolentino sponsored a resolution calling the Philippine government to formally lodge a claim to Sabah. Protracted studies were undertaken to support the claim. These tedious efforts led to the passing of a unanimous House resolution urging then newly-elected Philippine President Diosdado Macapagal to legally reclaim Sabah. The claim was primarily based on legal and historical right. On June 22, 1962, the Philippines, through the Department of Foreign Affairs, notified the British government of her claim of sovereignty, jurisdiction and proprietary ownership over Sabah as successor-in-interest to the Sultan of Sulu.

One of sterling qualities of President Diosdado Macapagal is the fact that he was a seasoned diplomat even before he became the fifth President of the Third Republic of the Philippines. His experience in the arena of foreign affairs was extensive and beyond reproach. Thus, during his term he introduced a new dimension in foreign policy for the Philippines ─ the “90-degree shift” toward Asia. Similar to his predecessor’s nationalistic position on security and trade issues, President Macapagal likewise made a bold step away from the traditional Philippine foreign policy of dependence on the United States. He envisioned a truly independent foreign policy, one that is founded on goal diversification towards stronger regional relations with neighboring Asian countries. Corollary to this aspect is the issue of settlement of disputes affecting the Asian region. President Macapagal knew too well that the best way to handle delicate problems such as territorial disputes in the region would have to be resolved amicably by Asian countries themselves. Subsequently, President Macapagal conceived the idea of organizing a consultative body which would foster national interest while at the same time temper any diplomatic friction with our Asian neighbors. Following the Tripartite Manila Summit held in July and August of 1963 between Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia, MAPHILINDO was born. The diplomatic strategy of President Macapagal to recover Sabah was obvious: through the advent of Maphilindo, the Philippine government could at least advance its position in a non-confrontational approach and hopefully push Malaysia to the bargaining table. Under this setting the Philippines, confident of her position, might persuade Malaysia to submit the question before the World Court or in any other arbitration body agreed by the parties.

President Macapagal’s optimism initially succeeded. On February of 1964 while in Phnom Penh Cambodia, President Macapagal had a private meeting with Prime Minister Rahman of Malaysia. In confidence, the Prime Minister agreed to settle the dispute amicably. Before they parted, as told by President Macapagal, they decided to elevate the question before the International Court of Justice (ICJ for brevity).

Despite the difficulty of reconciling the political differences between Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman of Malaysia and President Sukarno of Indonesia, President Macapagal prevailed in bringing them together for the second Summit Meeting in Tokyo on June of 1964. During this conference there was an attempt to create an Afro-Asian conciliation commission, an independent body tasked to settle disputes among the member-states. This proposal, however, fizzled because of the continuing rift between Malaysia and Indonesia. Nonetheless, the neighboring countries eventually agreed to settle any disputes that may arise between them by using any other possible means short of war. As a result, and acting pursuant to the earlier Cambodia meeting, the Philippine delegation made a formal announcement during the Tokyo Summit recognizing the Malaysia claim along with the agreement to submit the Philippine claim to Sabah before the World Court otherwise known as the International Court of Justice.

Unfortunately, and much to the dismay of President Macapagal, Prime Minister Rahman neither confirmed nor denied that they both agreed to settle the Sabah question in the World Court. Subsequent efforts on the part of President Macapagal to remind Prime Minister Rahman of their agreement ensued but to no avail. Apparently the Prime Minister changed his mind due to political pressures back home. Consequently, with the breakdown of the Sabah talks, the relationship between the Philippines and Malaysia soon became cold and tensed. All these, including the “konfrontasi” between Indonesia and Malaysia, largely contributed to the failure and untimely demise of Maphilindo. Suffice it to say that MAPHILINDO died of a natural death as the term of President Macapagal came to a close. And so was the Philippine claim to Sabah.

In the 1965 presidential election, President Macapagal run for re-election but lost to a much popular Nacionalista candidate Ferdinand Marcos. Signaling the entry of a new administration in power was President Marcos’ foreign policy on the Sabah dispute. Albeit the new President continued the shift away from an American centered foreign policy by strengthening ties with Asian and African states he nonetheless had a different view regarding the Sabah claim. With the creation of much stronger and viable regional Asian organization known as Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1967, President Marcos opted not to pursue the claim and focused his attention toward preservation of ASEAN unity. In his 1977 speech at the ASEAN SUMMIT held at Kuala Lumpur, President Marcos formally announced the withdrawal of the Philippine claim to Sabah, viz;

Before ASEAN can look to the outside world for equity, for justice and fairness we must establish order, fairness and justice among ourselves…I wish to announce that the Government of the Republic of the Philippines is therefore taking definite steps to eliminate one of the burdens of ASEAN─ the claim of the Philippine Republic to Sabah. It is our hope that this will be permanent contribution to unity, the strength, and prosperity of all of ASEAN.

Ultimately, President Marcos caused the formal withdrawal (not abandonment) of the previous claim on Sabah put forth by the Macapagal administration. As chief architect of foreign policy, President Marcos deemed it wiser not to offend Malaysia or to cause any tension in the Asian region.

References from my library:

1.) Perfecto Isidro, FOREIGN POLICY DIGEST 1972-1983, 5 (1983)
2.) Ateneo de Manila University: Department of Political Science, POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE: Theory and Practice 235 (1999 ed.)
3.) C.P. Serrano, BEATING THE ODDS: The Life, the Times and the Politics of Diosdado P. Macapagal, 64 (2005),
4.) Jovito Salonga, A JOURNEY OF STRUGGLE AND HOPE, 203 (2001)
5.) JOAQUIN.G. BERNAS , AN INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 331 (1st ed., 2002)
6.) J. COQUIA and M. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND WORLD ORGANIZATIONS, 429 (2005 ed.)
7.) JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, FOREIGN RELATIONS IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (1995 ed.)
8.) Salvador H. Laurel, The Sabah Question, SWORN TO SERVE (1990)
9.) Jovito Salonga, A Point-by-Point Reply, THE INTANGIBLES THAT MAKES A NATION GREAT (2006)
10.) Blacks Law Dictionary (1990 ed.)

The Sabah Question: Revisited (Part 2)

2010-08-24T00:21:00.000-07:00

The Legal Cobwebs

There is no question that the best way to resolve the dispute is through bilateral negotiations between the contending states. There is no question either, that in the event of failure to settle the dispute through diplomatic channels, last resort should be by way of judicial settlement. Now, how does judicial settlement works when the parties in the controversy are not individuals but sovereign states?

One of the methods of settling disputes under international law is through the International Court of Justice, the judicial organ of the United Nations. Member-states of the UN, like the Philippines and Malaysia, are deemed ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice (Statute for brevity). But why has the Sabah conflict remained unresolved up to this day given the fact that the disputants are indeed parties to the Statute? The answer may be gleaned in the provision of the Statute itself. As observed by Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, “Being party to the Statute, however, does not mean acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court. It simply means that the state may accept the jurisdiction of the court.” This view is consistent with Article 36 of the Statute, the pertinent provision governing the jurisdiction of the ICJ. Verily, according to Fr. Bernas, there are three ways under the Statute through which states may accept jurisdiction of the court: (a) on an adhoc basis; (b) by adhering to a treaty which accepts the jurisdiction of the court on matters of interpretation or application of a treaty; (c) by a unilateral declaration that recognition of jurisdiction in relation to any other state accepting the same jurisdiction in all legal disputes. The last creates the optional system of submitting to the jurisdiction of the court. The principle still adhered by most states is that no state can be compelled to litigate against its will. The basis of the jurisdiction of the Court, therefore, is the consent of the parties, given either in advance, or ad hoc and upon the occurrence of the dispute. Following the “optional jurisdiction clause” inscribed in the Statute, the jurisdiction of the ICJ is not compulsory but dependent of the agreement of the parties. The disputants must expressly consent or agree to submit the case otherwise the Court has no power whatsoever to hear and decide the controversy. The ICJ in a number of cases has said that its jurisdiction is primarily based upon the will of the parties, that is, their consent to submit to its jurisdiction. This judicial mechanism has been widely criticized, mostly coming from weak states, as inconsistent to the time-honored principle of sovereign equality of states. This too renders the ICJ as a toothless tiger, completely powerless to settle international disputes. In his 1968 lecture before the Student Body of Yale University, Dr. Salvador H. Laurel had this to say:

The total dependence of the World Court on the consent of the disputing parties is deplorable. It runs counter to the principle of ubi jus remedium. If there is a right, there must be a remedy. If a man is robbed or a woman is raped, must they first secure the consent of the robber before they can get justice? This is not so in national law. It should not be so in international law.

Malaysia’s continued refusal to submit the case to the ICJ is expected. Clearly, only parties confident of their positions are willing to settle much less go to court. It is inconceivable that Malaysia for the longest time remains silent on the issue. Is she avoiding adverse judgment if the case is elevated once and for all to the World Court? Malaysia bragged that they are absolutely sure of their grounds, if so, then why evade judicial settlement by an impartial body? It’s hard to speculate but an ounce of logic and a bit of common sense might help.

Let us have a glimpse of the legal bases of the Philippine claim. I shall cite the opinion of the esteemed former Senator Jovito Salonga, foremost advocate of the claim and a noted authority in the field of international law, viz;

Our claim is mainly based on the following propositions: that Overbeck and Dent, not being sovereign entities nor representing sovereign entities, could not and did not acquire dominion over North Borneo; that on the basis of authoritative British and Spanish documents, the British North Borneo Company, a private trading concern to whom Dent transferred his rights, did not and could not acquire dominion and sovereignty over North Borneo; that their rights were those indicated in the basic contract, namely, that of a lesee and a mere delegate; that in accordance with established precedents in International Law, the assertion of sovereign rights by the British Crown in 1946, in complete disregard of the contract of 1878 and their solemn commitments, did not and cannot produce results in the form of a new title.

The above-cited opinion says it all. In a word, how could the British government bought Sabah from the British North Borneo Company when the latter did not own it? It must be remembered that pursuant to the 1878 contract, the Company as successor-in-interest of the original lesee Dent, merely had leasehold rights not ownership over Sabah. Nemo dat qued non habet. No one can give what he does not have. And what possible legal justification could they give of the fact that the Company had continue to pay annual rentals until 1946, and the British government its successor-in-interest, until 1963? These acts certainly do not speak of attributes that of an owner, as the British government would like us to believe. Clearly, the right of purchase as claimed by the British government has no adequate legal basis to support it for “it is given with her feet planted in midair” so to speak. Again, let me quote the opinion of Dr. Laurel, viz;

The British North Borneo Company never owned Sabah and could never have sold it to the British government. The British government knew this all along. She, herself, had officially acknowledged the sovereignty of the Sultan of Sulu. Thus, if she really wanted to acquire Sabah legally, she should have acquired it from the real owner. Instead, she chose to acquire it from the Company. Necessarily, all she could acquire were leasehold rights which were all the Company had.

The Philippine position boils down to this conclusion: since the British did not possess the rights of sovereignty and dominion over North Borneo, neither did Malaysia acquire such rights when the British Crown transferred Sabah to her.

The Sabah Claim and the 1987 Constitution

Foreign policy goals and actions of a state, as pundits would always say, are often relative to the administration in power. Nonetheless, the Philippines has always been consistent with her position regarding the Sabah dispute. While she withdrew her claim on Sabah during the Marcos years, it does not mean, however, she abandoned it. To my mind, abandonment signifies permanency while withdrawal is transitory in nature. At best, the claim is dormant waiting to be revived any time.

The Philippine position on the Sabah issue is articulated in the provision on National Territory of the 1987 Constitution. The relevant portion states;

“The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction…”

Under the 1987 Constitution, national territory does not only mean the uncontested “archipelago” but also includes other territories outside of it “over which the Philippines has sovereignty and jurisdiction. The second category is intended as a catch-all phrase covering any other territory which the Philippines has a claim or might acquire in the future through settled modes of acquisition under international law. The case of Sabah clearly falls in this category, being a territory outside of the undisturbed areas in the archipelago over which the Philippines had filed a formal claim.

The intention for including such clause in the 1987 Constitution is traceable to the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. During the deliberation of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, there was an intense debate on what to do with the Sabah claim. Some members of the commission chose to retain the 1973 phraseology that says, “all other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title.” Others, however, proposed a new phraseology “all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.” The latter proposal prevailed. It must be noted that in essence, the change in phraseology is just a matter of semantics. If we recall, the phraseology used under the 1973 Constitution irritated Malaysia which understood the phrase as an outright assertion of Philippine claim over Sabah. As presently worded, the restyled phraseology merely tempered the previous language used in the 1973 Constitution. But the intent is clear: the Philippines is neither abandoning nor foreclosing any claim to Sabah.

At any rate, we must understand that a constitution is a domestic law. Whatever we say of the metes and bounds of our territory does not bind other states unless supported by some recognized principle of international law. “But for purposes of actual exercise of sovereignty,” wrote Fr.Bernas, “it is important for the sovereign state to know the extent of the territory over which it can legitimately exercise jurisdiction.” In simpler terms, if the Philippine Republic is dead serious of her claim over Sabah, she may recover it under settled principles of international law and procedure. It is my view however, that the implied inclusion of Sabah as part of the national territory in the constitution is apropos. It shows our consistency as a nation. It reflects our devotion to the rule of law in the Asean region and in the whole of international community. After all, the 1987 Constitution is not just an ordinary document but an expression and articulation of the sovereign will of the Filipino people. And just maybe, now is the time for the Filipino people to claim once more a land alienated by twisted history and tangled legal issues.

References from my library:

1.) Perfecto Isidro, FOREIGN POLICY DIGEST 1972-1983, 5 (1983)
2.) Ateneo de Manila University: Department of Political Science, POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE: Theory and Practice 235 (1999 ed.)
3.) C.P. Serrano, BEATING THE ODDS: The Life, the Times and the Politics of Diosdado P. Macapagal, 64 (2005),
4.) Jovito Salonga, A JOURNEY OF STRUGGLE AND HOPE, 203 (2001)
5.)JOAQUIN.G. BERNAS , AN INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 331 (1st ed., 2002)
6.) J. COQUIA and M. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND WORLD ORGANIZATION, 429 (2005 ed.)

COMFORT WOMEN: The elusive quest for justice (Part1)

2010-08-07T06:25:00.000-07:00

On April 28, 2010, the Supreme Court in Vinuya v. Romulo (G.R. No 162230) dismissed the petition filed by Filipino comfort women to compel the Philippine government to get a public apology from Japan and to secure reparation to victims of sexual abuse during World War II. Through the pen of Justice Mariano Del Castillo, the Court held, among others, that the Philippine government is not under any international obligation to espouse petitioners’ claims before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or any other international tribunal for that matter. Moreover, the claims for reparation put forth by petitioners against Japan are barred because they are deemed included in the waiver of claims by the Allied Powers, as provided mainly in the San Francisco Treaty of Peace of 1951. In other words, the Philippine government purportedly speaking in behalf of the victims, its citizens had already abandoned any claim for compensation as regards to Filipino comfort women ever since the signing of the Peace Treaty with Japan. I shall deal later with the merits of the position taken by the government.

It was in 1992 when we first heard the sad story of Lola Rosa, the first Filipina comfort woman to come forward publicly. Back then, she seemed to be alone in the wilderness shedding light on the ordeals of Filipina comfort women. After almost fifty (50) years, Lola Rosa finally revealed what it was really like to be a young Filipina held captive by the Japs during those fateful times. Even now, as I review the facts of Lola Rosa’s account, the rape, sexual slavery, torture and violence committed by the Japanese are truly disturbing and unthinkable for any human being. Imagine this, a scene of what appears to be her baptism of fire: at 16 years old, she was abducted and kept in a town hospital turned garrison. Suddenly, a Japanese soldier barged into the room. Armed with a bayonet, the soldier slashed her dress and stripped it open. Thereafter, he ravished her, her youth devoured whole. It happened for twelve more times that fateful day with 12 different soldiers. The little time she was left alone was almost unrecognizable and insignificant for only after 30 minutes or so, she bravely recounted, a new batch of hungry soldiers came to wolf on her jaded young body.

Such was the fate of Lola Rosa, a sex slave for the Imperial soldiers. But she was not alone in this plight. Lola Rosa at the time clearly represents the face of comfort women who were too ashamed to come out in the open. Soon enough though, inspired by Lola Rosa’s courage, many other Filipinas, erstwhile “comfort women” came out to speak the truth and recounted their own stories during captivity.

It is of importance to know that the crimes committed by Japanese soldiers were more than just series of rape or unconsented sex. There’s a lot more in it. In his article, The continuing agony of comfort (PDI, 07/22/10) women, quondam dean of the UP College of Law Raul Pangalangan made the following observation: we are talking about sustained and systematic abuse and debasement on a daily basis over months, if not years, of captivity. The UN rapporteurs have listed the following crimes, sexual violence, slavery, including sexual slavery and forced prostitution, crimes against humanity and cruelty, inhuman and degrading treatment.Here he tried to open the eyes of his readers into realizing that the repetitive stories of abuse of our local women was not, in reality, mere episodes of worldly desires, like most of us are aware of. Here he explained, the comfort women genre was in truth and in fact, a system crafted by the Japanese authorities to appease their soldiers’ sexual appetites in the course of their occupation. Like bones given to hungry dogs, our women were offered as hopeless preys. It was therefore clearly deliberate, fearless and unimaginable. It was a war policy out to keep them in war. In Vinuya v. Romulo, the Court ventured into the historical antecedents of the comfort women system.

The comfort women system was the tragic legacy of the Rape of Nanking. In December 1937, Japanese military forces captured the city of Nanking in China and began a “barbaric campaign of terror” known as the Rape of Nanking, which included the rapes and murders of an estimated 20,000 to 80,000 Chinese women, including young girls, pregnant mothers, and elderly women.

In reaction to international outcry over the incident, the Japanese government sought ways to end international condemnation by establishing the “comfort women” system. Under this system, the military could simultaneously appease soldiers' sexual appetites and contain soldiers' activities within a regulated environment. Comfort stations would also prevent the spread of venereal disease among soldiers and discourage soldiers from raping inhabitants of occupied territories.

Daily life as a comfort woman was “unmitigated misery.” The military forced victims into barracks-style stations divided into tiny cubicles where they were forced to live, sleep, and have sex with as many 30 soldiers per day. The 30 minutes allotted for sexual relations with each soldier were 30-minute increments of unimaginable horror for the women. Disease was rampant. Military doctors regularly examined the women, but these checks were carried out to prevent the spread of venereal diseases; little notice was taken of the frequent cigarette burns, bruises, bayonet stabs and even broken bones inflicted on the women by soldiers.

In 1991 a case for damages was filed by three former Korean comfort women before the Tokyo District Court. Others followed suit. However, as matter defense the Japanese government denied any involvement in the establishment of brothels or comfort stations during the war. It raised the issue that these brothels used for forced prostitution were set up and maintained not by Japanese soldiers as claimed by the victims, but private individuals. To this end, the Japanese government consistently invoked the same line of defense and thereby caused the dismissal of every suit in the domestic court.

But that is not the end of it. That seminal lawsuit made headlines and raised public awareness worldwide. Thereafter, serious efforts began mainly under auspices of the United Nations pressing among others, that Japan must issue a public apology admitting the establishment of comfort women system by the Japanese Imperial Army during the war, accept legal responsibility for that violation and pay the appropriate compensation to all their victims.

In 1992, faced with overwhelming evidence, the Japanese government finally succumbed to admission that indeed the military itself was involved in the operation of comfort stations during the war. A year later the much awaited apology came from no less than the Japanese government. In a statement issued by the Miyazawa government, the first explicit apology after fifty (50) years of denial, the government 'acknowledged' that the military had actively and forcibly maintained women sex slaves to satisfy the sexual urges of Japanese soldiers during World War II. The belated admission came as a direct result of a government investigation conducted since 1991 on the issue of wartime comfort women. Later on, concrete steps were taken by the Japanese government that eventually led to creation of the Asian Women Fund. Through the AWF, victims of the comfort women system may apply for monetary and medical assistance from the Japanese government. (Vinuya, supra) To this end, the Philippine government in 1997 signed an agreement with the AWF for medical and welfare assistance for former Filipino comfort women. Since then, these programs were gradually implemented by the government through the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).

To be continued...

MAKING MORAL CHOICES DURING ELECTIONS

2010-07-19T23:22:00.000-07:00

"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Gal. 4:16

In pushing for relevant change in politics, I salute young advocates who are idealists in making a positive and reformed difference in our society. Pursuing change has its great potentials from young minds since they have not been tainted with empirical corruption. Despite the strong tempting inclination of most candidates to go along with the tide of traditional politics, cheating, and winning at all costs(mostly by devious design), our society does not lack few albeit rare species of noble souls whose moral backbone remains unbending and unbreakable to check bad politics gone haywire. Initiating reform in politics and governance has always been a long daunting task. Call it wishful thinking but one can always hope for better things to run the affairs of government. This writer is tired and sick of always hearing how corruption has long gone berserk in our country and elevated to a shameless level. Even those candidates whose platform is grounded on the word “change” has demeaned its true meaning. They just want to change the status quo but not their character.

Admittedly though, these young advocates, though they are not candidates, instead get stoned and crucified for their dogged principles simply because they paddle against the tidal wave of political indecency. It is even sadder but ridiculous that candidates who get piqued with constructive and objective criticisms retaliate by challenging critics to also run for public office. Running for public office ultimately is a personal decision and not anyone’s dictates. Public servants should be forewarned that they will never be exempt from public criticisms. Take it or leave it, it comes with the territory. Our imperfect democracy assures us our freedom of speech. I would unsolicitedly advice these elected officials to just be open minded to criticisms that are at least within the bounds of constructive and objective decency. Transparency and accountability, though very cliché already, are not empty principles of governance but is imbedded in our laws. “Kung sino ang pikon, talo” goes the common reaction.

Elected officials must be reminded that they owe their mandate to the citizenry who voted them and therefore must be accountable to them including responding to constructive criticisms. But sadly, elected officials don’t think that way because a good number of our populace are already paid hacks resulting from vote-buying. Thus, these officials have this mindset that they should be “exonerated” from any accountability. Ergo, the evil of vote-buying gives the elected candidate the self-proclaimed idea that they should not be accountable to the electorate because the voters were already given their due. “Bayad na kayo, reklamo pa kayo ng reklamo” so says the common reply of candidates. In this setup, it is the people who are ultimately the losers.

VOTE-BUYING AND CORRUPTION

As a Christian, I tend to wonder how the moral values of some so-called Christian candidates are demonstrated. Oddly enough, what one can hear from them is “winning is the be-all and end-all whatever the means and the costs.” The means and the costs, in this regard, include vote-buying. This also means, as what a friend has relayed to me, “mas makapangyarihan pala ang pera kaysa prinsipyo.” There are candidates who are so obsessed in winning because this is the only thing that matters to them but on the other hand also consciously compromising their moral values and dignity. Gauging from the recent elections, this malady was so blatantly demonstrated. In the hollow minds of most candidates, it “seems” winning an elective seat obliterates their wrongdoings like vote-buying done during the campaign. My neighbor screams at candidates who won an elective position through immoral means and hopes that they will be “hounded and stigmatized throughout their term.”(makonsensiya sana).

Definitely, vote-buying is morally wrong. You can never reconcile vote-buying to one’s moral beliefs based on the moral teachings of the Scriptures. It is so diametrically opposite.

Where can we find a similar case of vote-buying in the Scriptures? Judas was “bought” with a few clinking of silver coins to “sell” his Savior to the political leaders of his time. Rhetorically, vote-buying is a betrayal of our sacred trust when we yield to its temptations. But many would arguably retort, “hey, we didn’t ask for it, they gave us money so what’s bad about it?” If one admits that he is not corrupt, how then should you call someone who consentingly accepted the bribe? Others argue that they would just receive the cash or goodies but will follow their “conscience” to vote the candidates of their choice. This kind of mindset however, still tolerates vote-buying to go on as a bad practice because one still consents to receive the bribe. Also from the point of view of the candidate, they can always lash out at voters that “pera lang ang katapat niyo at mukhang pera pa rin kayo.” Judas realized this and was so conscience stricken he hanged himself. Cash for your vote, anyone?

With corrupted elections, is the conscience of our corrupt elected officials and those recipients of vote-buying already numbed or devoid of any moral sense? I can only feel aghast as to what I have witnessed. On the other hand, I knew of a few friends who outrightly rejected bribes from candidates. The point to be driven here is that we, as morally conscious beings, can make a choice, including the choice to say no. Samuel Adams insightfully said and I quote “Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual - - or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.” That solemn trust sadly has been damaged with rampant vote-buying. Thus, it is right for these young idealists to remind our conscience that vote-buying is illegal and immoral. If the so-called “senior” candidates who have engaged in such sleazy tricks could not exemplify themselves as models to the youth, where else will the youth look up to as models then? Regrettably though, even young candidates now would also mortgage their soul and follow the path of dirty politics. Corrupting our youth is corrupting our hope.

As a challenge, how many candidates who were re-elected can make an open declaration like this presidential candidate who said “hindi ako magnanakaw” and truly mean it?

VOTE-BUYING AS A DISHONORABLE ACT

A Roman Catholic priest (and PPCRV chairman in the recent elections) aptly described to me his observations that thousands of people went to the mayor’s house to “sell” their votes. Denying it to high heavens simply insults our intelligence. Both the vote-buyer and vote-seller were indeed shamelessly engaged in a happy tango. In a homily delivered by the Roman Catholic bishop in a barangay church, he presented this question to the parishioners during the campaign period: Anyone of you received 500 pesos from candidates? The parishioners were dead silent. One lawyer friend advised that we should not allow candidates to treat us as downright stupid by accepting their bribes but how many deaf ears heeded this advice?

Relatively, how can an elected official be respectfully addressed “honorable” by well-informed citizens when the means they employed to earn that title are brazenly dishonorable. Woefully, many of our candidates in my hometown (or elsewhere) engaged in such pusillanimous schemes like giving of cash, rice, sardines, noodles and tamban fish. Strangely also, one candidate’s selling point was promising free death insurance to voters if he wins. All these in the guise of an insulting plea: “tulong ito ha, hindi vote-buying.” This sort of problem spawns a “lazy” culture of the majority of Filipinos who look for leaders who can provide them with dole-outs. It also breeds a vicious cycle of patronage and corruption, more Juan Tamads in this modern era and beggarship attitude. Ergo, candidates who are into vote-buying are guilty of reinforcing a hand-out culture. Thus, Rizal’s description of an indolent Filipino people is prophetically true. The right thing to do would be not simply to give the poor fish, but to teach them how to catch fish.

After the elections, two elected councilors (not from the political party where I campaigned for) separately but personally sought my services as a speechwriter for them. I asked both councilors if ever they were engaged in vote-buying. Both said no. The first councilor, a longtime acquaintance in which I also wrote his profile, was invited for a speaking engagement in Las Vegas. I consented to write his speech but not after I gave my piece of mind how election was so shamelessly dirty in Isabela City. I gave the same acid lecture to the second councilor. After some negotiations with the second councilor, I likewise consented. To my dismay, I discovered a week later that the second councilor gave 500pesos to barangay kagawads, one of them who was my friend. I can only shake my head in disbelief. Disappointed, I told an emissary of the second councilor that I am withdrawing as his speechwriter.

MOLDING OUR MORAL VALUES

Let me dissect a bit on how we develop and mold the foundations of our moral values. There are three basic institutions that influence our moral conscience.

First institution is the home. I firmly believe that all mothers and fathers inculcate good morals to their children by teaching and reminding their kids, “anak, wag kang magsinungaling, wag kang malulong sa bisyo, wag kang magnakaw, wag kang manakit ng ibang tao, wag kang matigas ng ulo, papaluin kita.” For sure no parent would ever impart wrong trainings to their offsprings. And yet, bluntly speaking, how many parents were beneficiaries of vote-buying? What a sordid testimony to young minds!

The second institution is the school. As pupils, our teachers further molded our moral values with good manners and right conduct within the confines of the classroom. However, I was petrified when one of my workers enrolled in a college evening class informed me that teachers were also lining up waiting for their turn to received cash amounts in a candidate’s residence! (Let me categorically say that I am not making a sweeping generalization here because there are also teachers who were not blinded by money).

The third institution is the church which should help strengthen our core values, righteousness and faith in God. We go to church Sunday after Sunday, kneel, pray, sing religious songs as worship, make a sign of the cross but on the following day lining up, shoving, elbowing and barging through a candidate’s house hankering for the 500pesos like hungry wolves! One religious sect even endorsed a mayoralty candidate who engaged in vote-buying in past elections and still doing the same in the recent elections. I am not sure what the basis for their endorsement was. A leader (who also claims himself as a prophet) of a big church anointed a presidential candidate as the next president of the Philippines only to witness that candidate lost by a wide margin against the winning candidate. For whatever reason, can it be said that churches have also been penetrated with bad politics?

Every Christian has a moral duty to demonstrate righteous indignation at corruption and at reprehensible abuses of power. We do not have to wrestle with the angels on the question of whether we should tolerate crooks and cheats in our midst.

TIME RUNNING OUT

Outside of these three institutions, where else can we further fortify and find shelter for our moral rectitude in times of tests and trials? Or am I simply naïve talking to a blank wall here because I was never a receiver of any political bribe? I confess I am neither an angel nor a saint nor holier-than-anyone. I am an imperfect being still under process by my God to borrow the term of a Christian friend. All I can confess too is that my family was never a recipient of vote-buying and would not intend to be.

Is it possible for me within my lifetime to witness a genuine reform, secure an authentic mandate from an honest election? Time is running out on my generation. I don’t want my children to be witnesses of the continuous malady of corruption perpetuated through and through. I still want to see some guarantees in my remaining years in this world that my children are given safety and an opportunity for a dignified life vis-a-vis good governance even how flawed our democracy is. It gives me a light of hope when young minds come to the fore shouting from the rooftops telling our government leaders what the right and moral thing to do as a Biblical injunction instead of apathy that many of us can be faulted of. Lamentably, the reality is otherwise from the truth. Label me unrealistic whatever, so be it, but not untruthful to my convictions herein.

If it is of any least consolation for my children, I can say that I was not just a fence-sitter overtaken by a couldn’t-care-less indifference, that their papa’s integrity was not cheapened with bribe offers from candidates. In this country, the rule is if you have no clout, might as well shut up and rage in silence. But then, apathy and keeping quiet is tolerating evil to prosper. One adage goes that the sin of silence, when we should be protesting, makes cowards out of men.

I gave my 5 cents worth of critical views against the evils of vote-buying and likewise supported candidates who did not engage in devious schemes even if my candidates lost. For all its moral worth, I can tell my children that there is still dignity in an honest defeat than one who fraudulently won through vote buying. Saying that this malpractice is incurable is a surrender of our core values and grossly debasing our human dignity.

In this imperfect world and imperfect system, a perfect God is not blind. As a Christian, it will be God’s holiness and righteousness that will ultimately prevail and defeat the follies of this world, the evils of vote-buying included.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This article is written by Nickarter "Boy" Gonzalo, a fellow Christian writer and advocate of good governance.

THE PARABLE OF THE YOUNG TRAPO: The Final Sermon

2010-06-19T21:27:00.000-07:00

"We have to protect the morals of our youth, for the corruption of our youth is the corruption of our hope." Salvador H. Laurel

He was awakened by the thud of crowd in front of his sturdy manor. They bellowed for words aren’t clear to him for the moment. As they continued to screech for more, the presence of them continued to stir mixed feelings upon him. Just days ago, he was elated to know that he won in the first ever automated elections. He was in utopia. Then several days after that, here they are bellowing at the top of their lungs…shouting of words he barely can’t understand. Are they mad at him? As far as he can remember everybody was good to him, all smiling and doing beso-beso. When finally he cleared his mind, he routed his eyes on the crowd in front of him. A weary woman, in her worn-out malong, carrying a small child on her arm and making a plea as if he has fathered her child; a middle-aged man with a slightly thwarted face shouting as if he had owed him something; and a bigger group of people asking for more!

He was in a state of confusion. Gradually though, the words are beginning to make sense, but he refused still to understand. He merely uttered to himself, “Who are these people? What are they doing here?” He suddenly did not remember anything or anyone. He tried to recollect thoughts but can’t recover anything. He tried hard. Hard enough to put into perspective why a wide group of people would gather in front of his mansion uninvited. His victory party was long over, he thought. He was lured back by a voice. They are asking for what you have promised, remember? He tried hard again to remember and refused once more. But their words are now clearer, more lucid and unavoidable: Konsehal! Asan na ‘yong ipinangako mong kapital para sa itatayo kong negosyo? Nasaan na po ang tulong na sinabi niyo noong eleksyon, ibinoto pa naman namin kayo dahil doon! With these all clear to him, still he hesitated to go down and face them. So unlikely of the past weeks when he was so willing and in all smiles shaking their hands. In his perplexity, he sought refuge from the concrete walls of his folks’ mansion and felt somehow secured. But instincts tell him, this won’t be the last. The words that lasted on his mind: IT’S PAY BACK TIME!

Allow me to share this short story about the aftermath of the recently concluded elections on a young politician who crafted his way to his post thru groceries and unconcrete promises to his constituents. This is fictional. And I sincerely hope that you do not in anyway find yourself in this short story, either as the “he” who suddenly turned deaf or the “crowd” that continues to cry out. Unfortunately however, this may be happening in the very near future if it is still not happening today somewhere out there…Isabela City perhaps?

What is the moral of the story then? The narrative has a great deal to do with the Biblical proposition: WE REAP WHAT WE SOW. In politics, when a candidate’s platform is rooted on money politics and personal interest, his eventual assumption to power signifies only two things: PERPETUATION OF POWER AND CORRUPTION. He has no choice really, sink or swim he needs to sustain the whims and caprices of his constituents. Empty promises and commitments ranging from “pangbinyag” to “pampalibing” are common practices which are deeply etched in our political culture. Political solicitation is from womb to tomb. Hence, for every handshake and “beso-beso” during barangay sorties, a deal is sealed. Literally, a politico so committed with traditional politics could never meet the demands of his evil practices without dipping his fingers in public coffers. Whatever it takes he has to give in to their demands at any cost if he wants political survival. What else could we expect from this vulture? Indeed power corrupts absolutely. In the long run, the dutiful taxpayers of this nation are at the losing end having to shoulder the burden of incessantly filling the monetary buckets of government.

In my article, “New Breed on the Block: Young trapos in local politics?” I warned the voters, mainly constituents of my beloved hometown, to examine carefully young candidates running for public office. I was appalled of the fact that trapos nowadays are not anymore imaged after some old and beer-bellied politicos but even amongst the good built yuppies. In fact, although I knew that my past post had lame targets, I never imagined that the said article would create a big fiasco over the net. The people on the other end did everything to argue with me except answer the very basic issue of the exposition I did. As I see it, the reason why this fiasco over the net got big is because they failed to be objective. Their plan of attack was simple: shy away from the issue then attack the writer. God! I just can’t imagine how much time they have devoted in seeing through me. They tried to explain why this writer writes the things he writes and why he writes the way he does. In fact, in defense of his brother, Roland Rodriguez had given me a needle-like lecture on sociology, trying it hard to explain why I was critical about his brother, Councilor-elect Mr.Abner Rodriguez. He discussed in that response all the sociological characteristics of the Filipinos, i.e., crab mentality, amor proprio, etc, trying to point out that I was unFilipino. But then again, we do not need all these terms to explain my political leanings and criticisms. We do not need so. And we do not have to. They merely should answer the question I laid down. That’s being objective. I would not attempt to be a self-proclaimed sociologist like him. You see, some people envision public office as something that will boost their egos, fame and influence on society. They often think highly of themselves so much so that they can never accept any kind of criticism. Not even an objective one. They instantly take umbrage and unleash the critics with senseless bickering and below-the-belt innuendos. Now why is this happening? I would like to believe that this has something to do with the wrong motivation and lack of understanding of what public office truly means. It seems that even at this point they could not harmonize the basics of free speech in relation to “public figure, public interest and governmental powers”. Clearly, they have a limited view of the entire democratic framework. In the scheme of things, there is nothing they can do about it. That’s how democracy works. This kind of elitist mentality, wrong motivation and all are the very causes of malfunctions under the present political system. I must say however that, in my opinion, being “not objective” is NOT a collective character of all Filipinos. I am in no better position to say that. Maybe the other man can for he devoted all his discourse in educating me as if I am reading a sociology handout in college. Nope, it’s not a Filipino like thing. It’s basically human’s way to escape things when everything else fails.

As far as I can still recollect, it all started with this query: Did he or did he not engaged in traditional politics to win a seat in the local council by giving out noodles and cans of sardines? Firstly, let me clear that the name of this public official never came from me. It was his supporters who flaunted his name. So they must, I understand, defend him at all costs even if it means coming out of the real issue. I can’t think of a better explanation for their behavior but this: How on earth can you find the right words to defend something or someone you know is wrong? The answer is simple again: Go out of the box and shy away from the issue. Their first strike: Our supposed familial ties. On my part, that should have never been brought forwarded. It was and should never have been an issue. They did not realize that by bringing that familial thing, they created a scenario that convicted their ‘public official’ more. Their message was clear: I should stop writing about my observations in our recently concluded elections, especially that regarding our local elections in Isabela City, because we are family after all. This was to me, the lamest mean to escape the situation because in the end, their defense ended as a plea. NAGMAMAKAAWA PARA TIGILAN NA PARA NA LANG SA DAHILAN NA MAGKAPAMILYA. It would have been different if they have told me to cease writing because I am wrong and not because we are simply related by blood. My respect would have been easily bought, este, gained in that way. Kidding aside, I must stress that the saying that “blood is thicker than water” finds no application in politics and governance. For if it does, you, as a public official, exposes a kind of governance that encourages corruption and palakasan. I also remember the brother saying to me that his brother will never succumb to corruption if elected as city councilor because from his very words, “they have always lived a luxurious life because of his family’s hardwork.” The term “luxurious” struck me in a different light. On my part, he should have at least used the term “comfortable” or even “contented” which to me are more innocuous terms in light of the discussion. The word scared me, really! Luxuries should always give in to public office and service. Otherwise, it’s dooms day. Public service, in its honest sense, can never live up with the luxurious life he has. Reality however bits us hard, wounding us deep. Luxury and public service are congruent terms in a corrupt political setting. Anyway, let us give him credit for his truthfulness. I hope they were as truthful when confronted with the sardines and groceries issue, lol. Just a thought! Now you may say, "C'mon, give this guy a break and let him prove his worth in the council." Yes, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt but on one condition: NO MORE BEATING AROUND THE BUSH AND SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT! Did you or did you not? I can read your mind and I agree. It certainly takes a great deal to admit one’s shortcoming. But that honesty does not make you less of a man. We all have our shortcomings. In fact, history has unfolded several times that reviving a besmirched reputation starts from honesty. It must not end here though. What matters is what we do after a fault. Remember, a bad beginning emulates a worse middle and figures a worst ending. It’s a vicious cycle that only we can stop.
.
To end this exposition, I would emphasize again that this phenomenon of young trapos joining politics is far more dangerous because they are more likely to stay in power for the longest time by merely replacing the old players in the system. I’m a hopeless idealist alright, but something tells me that my ideals would in a way reflect the common sentiment of the silent minority that change must come from the outside. But what happens if those who are tasked to instill noble reforms in the old system are merely heirs of the traditional system-operators? Here I would like to suggest that the system is not the problem. The system was meant to serve as a medium to bridge the chasm, forge consensus between the people on one hand, and government on the other. But our government officials, the operators in the system manipulated it to suit their personal agendas. Again, similar to a philosophical assumption, when the starting point is flawed everything is bound to be wrongheaded. It is best then, that we should not expect too much from the incoming young “Honorables” whose mandate to rule stems from the evil practices of trapo politics. This is not an omen but a warning to our fellowmen to choose the people they want to run the system. It’s also a challenge, a brave challenge to run counter the present political maladies in the country.

Reference: To Build Upon A Rock: Excerpts from Public Discourses 1967 to 1987 by Salvador H. Laurel (1987)

Why I Am Still A Christian?

2010-06-01T23:51:00.000-07:00

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God;because if there be one, he must more approve of the homeage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."- Thomas Jefferson

Allow me today to write about my Christian faith and how I wrestled with recurring doubts to satisfy my intellectual curiosity and worldly urges through the years. At the outset, let me stress that I was born a cultural Catholic. However, upon reaching the age of six (6), I was exposed to an entirely different belief. It was my mother, a dedicated elementary teacher, who opened our eyes to the teachings of the bible and Christianity. From then, the whole family shifted devotion and became born again Christians. As the words imply, we felt being born again into this world, with a new faith to hold on to. Our new faith catalyzed the irreversible changes in our family. I witnessed first hand how my father changed his life instantly, from habitual drunkard to a living saint. He was in a state of total transfiguration. Meanwhile, the rest of us vowed to spread the gospel in our community. On my part and so with my two older siblings, we ventured into the realm of reading bible stories and other gospel anecdotes. I can say that this exposure has honed me to be the writer and reader that I am today. Since then, I can beastly say that my reading skills and comprehension hyped unimaginably. Although admittedly I was an inconsistent honor student in school, but when it comes to bible quizzes I always emerge as the ultimate victor above anyone else. As my spirit is languished with a fresh faith, my tot brain was flooded with bible characters and scriptural verses one after the other.

Later, my desire to read the bible became monotonous until the passion dwindled to ground zero. It was not abrupt, though. Gradually, as I discovered the wild edges of secular thoughts and practices, I began to question the very faith I turned down the other one for. At the age of twelve (12), I became obsessed with rock music and learned to play the guitar as fast as I could. My fondness for bible characters dramatically shifted to rock icons like the Beatles and later to a much heavier stuff. How, un Christian-like of me! I turned deaf to all criticisms, especially of my mother who was very against it. Unheeding her authority, together with my high school buddies, we formed a rock band to satisfy our rock n’ roll fantasy. Now, we felt like certified rockstars! Suddenly, I was being reborn again! This time I was embracing another passion …

For quite sometime, we enjoyed local popularity like appearing in local television shows and radio programs. Humbly, we won the much coveted battle of the bands contest. The perks and porks of slight popularity elevated our minds to a nearly euphoric level. Being the popular guys we were, flirting with girls was much easier. Add in all the mischief we seemed licensed to do so, undoubtedly, this new passion has moved me further away from my Christian faith. It was on the brink of destruction and no amount of biblical passages could save it from ruin.

My unchristian journey continued until college. Way passed through it however, I was beginning to see an unclear direction for my future. This time however, my desire to turn my life into the path where it should be was abrupt. I suddenly realized how education could lift me from the emptiness I am feeling. I completely abandoned my foolishness and decided to devote more time in my studies. But reviving my faith was never put into issue. My Christian faith remained dormant in many ways except that by this time I regularly attend Sunday service in our church. Thus again, did not revive my Christian faith even in some little way. The next lines would illustrate why.

Please give me this chance to make these admissions. The sermons delivered by our pastor never arouse my intellectual hormones let alone strengthening my Christian faith. Going to church every Sunday became more of a routine rather than a sacrosanct duty for every devout Christian. These made me crave for an unorthodox or radical perspective of the bible. I hail for a teaching far from the usual evangelical sermons which to me were purely rhetorical and conventional. These things however were not done without a little sense of remorse for my slowly weakening faith. In fact, I feared that one day I may not be able to defend my Christian faith against other religious dogmas. To counter this, I made a commitment to pursue the truth at all cost. Thus, I began to ask serious questions regarding origin of life, morality and ultimately the very existence of God. As mentioned, the conventional evangelical teachings failed to provide persuasive answers to these critical questions. Thus, I remained a nominal Christian for quite sometime. So it must have been fate (that’s contextual), that I entered law school…the battleground for logical thinking and academic discipline.

In law school we were thought not to take anything at face value. Facts must be supported by convincing evidence otherwise you can't justify your theory to win a case. Having this kind of training and thinking, I started to test my Christian faith using my training as a law student. I contemplated whether most Christians are really indeed Christians in the truest sense of the word. Do they have the right reasons to support their belief? This is where the distinction between faith based on reason (reasonable faith) and faith guided by blind assumptions deserves critical precarious considerations.

Here there should be a clear delineation between cultured Christians and authentic believers or followers of Christ. And so I search deeper and deeper, asking questions about faith and the existence of God. To satisfy my intellectual curiosity, I read books on secular worldviews. Having proclaimed myself as a fledgling Christian apologist, I started to conduct my own research and ended up with Bertrand Russell's essay on "Why I am Not A Christian." I must admit though, that Russell's objection to Christianity is a bit shallow and mostly couched in an open-ended language. Nonetheless this essay however bolstered my curiosity and decided to search deeper on atheism and agnosticism. Finally I devoured books authored by militant atheists Sam Harris (e.g.The End of Faith and Letter to the Christian Nation) and Christopher Hitchens (e.g. God is not great), both are staunch defenders of atheism or should I say hard core atheists. Most of their objections, except for their incessant anti-God tantrums, are valid and intellectually stimulating so to speak. I then entered into the realm of metaphysics which I found amusing but very difficult to understand in first reading. By this time I was partly convinced that the anti-theist theory is bereft of any logical arguments as to the non-existence of God. Embracing atheism as a way of life is like succumbing to a life of perpetual emptiness, a life without meaning. But still questions exist in my head. If atheism is a farcical worldview, does Christianity provide authentic answers to all questions pertaining to meaningful existence- a life based on morality? Again I searched for answers carefully weighing everything and anything that Christianity has to offer as the gospel of truth. Then I came across Ravi Zacharias’ book on Christian apologetics entitled Can Man Live Without God. (e.g. The End Of Reason) This work tackles on the philosophical aspects of Christianity and deals squarely among others, with Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason” on the issue of morality and happiness. Then I resorted to Lee Strobel’s outstanding book, The Case for Faith, a very interesting book which answers almost all my questions and doubts as to what faith really is in essence. My further readings obviously expanded my understanding on faith and reason, between theism and anti-theism, and more importantly the essence of being a true Christian. I always thought that God gave me the absolute freedom to navigate uncharted waters so that I may be able to appreciate Him more. To do otherwise, I guess is to depict God as a lesser Being.

The pursuit of truth is a never ending journey for us Christians. My journey so far has brought me satisfaction both intellectually and spiritually. While I do not wish to discuss Christian philosophy or apologetics in this writing, the message I want to convey is two fold. First, it is a normal thing for us human beings to question or to have doubts regarding our respective faith. By encountering doubts, we pursue the truth, we search for a deeper explanation about life and meaningful existence. That is the essence of free will. Freedom to think is a God given right, use it to know your creator by heart. Second, by pursuing the truth you may be able to defend your Christian faith in any given forum, and in the end convince others to be followers of Christ. Knowing the truth is the decisive answer to the question on why I am still a Christian all this time

I THINK therefore I am for GIBO

2010-05-08T23:53:00.000-07:00

Right from the start, I’m torn between two astute presidential candidates. This is not always the case ever since I became a registered voter. Normally, I had it all figured out a year or two before official declarations are made. But in this crucial 2010 Presidential Election, I must say I walked the extra mile before reaching a decisive decision whom to support. To be fair, I deliberated so hard on the pros and cons of each prospective candidate. Spent enormous time in research and profiling. I really wanted to make sure that if I will select a presidential candidate, I may be able to defend him not on Plaza Miranda but coffee shops. Why coffee shops? Well, for one I’m an insatiable coffee drinker. I love to talk, talk and talk over a cup of brewed coffee. (Not all the time of course, especially when the one sitting at the other end of the table loves to talk more about non-sense TV shows like the pathetic Pinoy Big Brother.) But more than this, coffee shops are convenient venues for the perceived “educated” working class in the metropolis. This is not to say that those who can’t afford Starbucks or Figaro are bereft of any opportunity to have fruitful discussions. In fact, even the street sweeper has a lot of sensible things to say on socio-political issues more than the conos whose silly conversation centers on six pack abs and weight loss. Anyway, my point is, in coffee-shops people tend to shed their inhibitions on almost anything. I would like to think that caffeine has something to do with this. It may be psychological or a cop-out to some, but coffee to me is something closely related with my personality. And so before throwing off my hat in the arena of coffee-table discussion, I had to make sure that my turf is secured. Heck, my presidential candidate deserves a zealous defense against the evils of politics like black propaganda and character-assassination. It has been my practice to never discuss issues with anyone who focuses more on personalities rather than substantive issues like platforms of government and track-record. Can you defend your preference with passion and objectivity? I’m sure you do and so am I! So here it goes.

At the outset and by looking at the prospective line-up of presidential candidates, I decided to go for Richard “Dick” Gordon all the way. Not until the eloquent Gilbert “GIBO” Teodoro came in the picture. I came to know Gilbert Teodoro long before he became a member of the House of Representatives but when he landed at the top spot of the 1989 Bar Examinations. As we all know, the bar examination is “arguably” the most difficult government examination administered no less than the Supreme Court itself. While passing the bar exam is more than enough ticket to success, topping the bar is surely every barrister’s elusive dream. GIBO, in all his media interviews, never bragged about topping the bar or bagging the Dean’s Medal for Academic Excellence in the prestigious UP College of Law. And oh, not to mention GIBO is a holder of Master of Laws from Harvard University. With all his sterling academic achievements both here and abroad, GIBO remains a humble creature.

You must be nuts if you say that GIBO is not a standout amongst the presidential candidates during live television debates. While most candidates stutter when answering stale yet tricky questions propounded to them by the audience, GIBO managed to answer it all with honesty and sincerity. He may not be a great speaker in the likes of Ferdinand Marcos or Ninoy Aquino but in terms of wit, deep grasp of issues, and vision of government, GIBO could emerge as the runaway winner in today’s presidential derby. Unlike most presidential bets, GIBO never promised the stars and the moon just to win the masses. He is a realist. He does not have to hide beneath the cloth of motherhood statements to the extent of exuding false hopes to the people. In my article Aquino and Villar: Slogging through Campaign Slogans, I lambasted two “messianic” inflicted presidential candidates for exploiting the issue of poverty and corruption throughout the campaign season. The 1987 Constitution is emphatic that a president can only serve for one term and that is for six (6) years with no re-election. How the hell can a president extirpate deeply-rooted problems of poverty and corruption in six (6) years? The least he can do is to minimize or lay a foundation for the next president, may be his vice-president or any other future president. Is this what they are trying to say? I think not. Most of them seem to make us believe that they have some sort of a magic wand in their hands. And with a magic spell like Harry Potter’s “Wingardium leviosa!” alas, poverty and corruption disappear in the face of our nation. And so for the next six (6) years, we will be all living under a utopian state as envisioned by Plato. No hunger, no corruption and to make it more rustic, let’s say that there will be angels singing and trumpeting all throughout the six-year term. I understand that a populist platform is an effective campaign strategy. But sorry to say, like most thinking Filipinos, I’m not buying it. I don’t get it really. The reason why most candidates resort to messianic-strategy is because they have little respect for the masses. Like what I always say, necessitous men are not free men. This to my mind is one of the factors that separate GIBO from other presidential candidates. His honesty and sincerity can be judged with the way he presents himself to the public. He talks more about feasible reforms supported by hard facts and figures. If you, by any chance happens to be an avid viewer of presidential debates then you know very well what I’m talking about. With all the deeply rooted problems of this nation, what we need are real solutions coming from a realistic and intelligent leader. Of all presidential candidates, only GIBO has the guts to admit in public that genuine reforms may take some time to implement but we will be heading towards that direction. Now taking into consideration our political culture, how’s that for a presidential candidate?

The reason why most people tend to shy away with politics or government for that matter is because they picture it as a dirty game. This attitude has serious repercussions. It discourages citizens to participate in the affairs of government. It likewise promotes complacency and attention-deficit on the part of the people in relation with the government. In the end, the outcome is manifested with the crop of leaders we have elected to sit in public office. The players, mostly traditional politicians have a lot to do with this negative perception. This is especially true even during election season. Have you seen how LP presidential bet Noynoy Aquino and Nacionalista standard-bearer throw mud at each other? The equation is simple: Noy accordingly has an untainted character but very poor track record while Villar has a relatively solid legislative track record but with a questionable character. Now, with this kind of picture, the strategy is predictable. Pinch salt on the weaknesses and bank on the perceived advantages. I don’t have to elaborate any further since the media has always been jumpy every time these two presidential candidates fired at each other. It’s an ugly mess and I don’t want be associated with this kind of politics. If one of them happens to be your sure-fire bet to the presidency, then don’t expect reforms in government because what you see right now is what you’ll gonna get for the next six years.

Where is GIBO amidst this mudslinging politics? Well, my presidential candidate is obviously busy waging a positive campaign all over the country. Critics, mostly from the anti-GMA camps, have tried to put him down many times. Some of them throw black propaganda at him but what do they get in exchange? GIBO just simply shrugged them off. Show me one, just one TV interview where GIBO appears to be vindictive against his fiercest critics who have nothing against him except that he is a LAKAS standard bearer, and I would be willing to concede my mistake. I tell you there is none. GIBO, despite his superb credentials and being a Cojuangco, remains prudent and humble amidst the political circus. When asked about the rationale behind his positive campaign, GIBO had this to say, "If I also put hatred and negativity in my heart, and practice mudslinging, how can I unite the nation when I become the president?" LP presidential bet Noynoy Aquino has a lot to learn from his cousin on how to wage a positive campaign that promotes unity rather than divisiveness.

For argument’s sake, let us pretend that LP bet Noynoy Aquino has the much needed character and integrity to become the next Philippine president. Does it necessarily follow that all other presidential contenders are corrupt and devious? In other words, Noy Aquino or anyone for that matter has no monopoly or exclusivity whatsoever to make a pompous claim that, “Inde ako magnanakaw!” If you ask me, I will go for character plus track record. Why settle for less if we could have more. Strangely, if all that is needed is simply character to make a good president, why not elect Ang Kapatiran standard bearer JC De los Reyes or perhaps Nick Perlas to the presidency? Surely these two struggling presidential contenders have never been linked to any scandal or corruption in government. They too represent new blood in Philippine politics as opposed to trapo governance. The truth is, and some quarters may find this hard to admit, qualities such as character, intelligence and track-record are all essential features of a great president. Very well then, is there even a hint that GIBO, judging from his many years of public service, would be a “magnanakaw” if elected as the 15th Philippine President? Critics are quick to dismiss him all because he served as a cabinet member of GMA and later as the standard bearer of LAKAS. This is a clear case of guilt by association. The way I see it, this issue has always been the lone objection against GIBO. Like my pessimistic friends, critics label GIBO as GMA’s lapdog. On the contrary, I believe this single yet defensible barrier may work to GIBO’s advantage. It is here where GIBO show the makings of a great president.

In various live presidential debates and media interviews, GIBO has always been castigated and tagged as GMA’s puppet. However, critics don’t seem to care to check on his accomplishment as the youngest appointee since Ramon Magsaysay to head a key executive position. In August 2007 and at the age of 43, GIBO was appointed as Secretary of the National Defense and chairman of the National Disaster Coordinating Council. As Secretary of Defense, GIBO led the campaign against communist and Muslim rebels. GIBO likewise vowed to employ anti-corruption measures to cleanse the department. And he did. To systematically combat corruption within DND, GIBO implemented a policy that would coincide with transparency and accountability in all DND’s transactions especially with a third party who belongs to the business sector. As chairman of the National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) GIBO oversaw rescue and rehabilitation efforts in areas devastated by typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng. In both tasks, GIBO undoubtedly gain public admiration for his performance as a cabinet secretary.

During his stint as Secretary of DND and while serving concurrently as the head of the National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC), I never heard an iota of accusation charging GIBO of corruption. And so if GIBO did a fine job as a cabinet secretary, why charge him guilty for the excesses committed by the Arroyo administration? Is there a reasonable link between GIBO’s performance as cabinet secretary and the Helo Garci, Fertilizer scams, NBN-ZTE fiasco and other constitutional violations committed by GMA? Time and again, critics tried to squeeze blood on GIBO because he is the administration’s candidate. Believe me, I’m not an apologist for GMA’s administration. I have been very critical in my writings every time GMA so decides to tinker with the 1987 Constitution. But let us put things in the proper perspective and be objective enough.

I may not be able to cite each and every accomplishment of GIBO as a budding lawmaker and as a cabinet member but one thing is sure about my candidate, he definitely has what it takes to conquer the highest position in the land. Yeah right, Aquino and Villar are the frontrunners based on manipulated electoral surveys but GIBO has been upstaging them in every presidential debate. To me, it’s more than enough that GIBO left a significant mark for voters to rethink their choices and maybe, just maybe, switch their support and go for the substance. If you want a cheesy presidency, by all means vote for LP's Benigno Simeon Aquino III. Or maybe if you’re not into that, there is transactional politics or the win-win solution approach offered by NP Manuel Villar. As for the convicted plunderer Erap Estrada all I can say is, YOU HAD YOUR WINDOW SIR…AND YOU BLEW IT BIG TIME! No pun intended but what is at stake here is the future of our country and GIBO is the best choice for the 2010 Presidential Election. I THINK therefore I am for GIBO!

New Breed On The Block: Young trapos in local politics?

2010-04-02T18:18:00.000-07:00

I would like to write about local politics today. I would have preferred to discuss national politics again but my interest has shifted dramatically towards the micro-level aspect of the entire political spectrum. I remember what my feisty professor on local government would always say: all politics is local. And there is absolutely a ring of truth about this observation. Certainly, national officials, particularly the incumbents who seek re-election, draw enormous strength from their wards and errand boys in the local level. This is where political parties play an important role for any national candidate during elections, at least ideally. But culled from the premise that all politics is local, are we to say that most local officials or candidates too have little regard for party principles? Conversely, I would like to believe that the deterioration of principled politics in the national level is but a mirror of what is really happening in the parochial arena. It is really of no moment even if you have elected the best presidential candidate come 2010 if in the end, you have just filled the city hall with the worst possible incompetent candidates for public office. I mean let us be realistic in all this. If you happen to be a gullible person and you picture the next president as someone who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, well you are in for a disappointment. The next president, even with the best possible technocrats and advisers in his cabinet, can only do so much during his term of office. To be able to solve all the deeply-rooted problems in our country necessitates more than just a great chief executive but it also entails a strong and stable foundation of the entire structure. At the end of the day, the progress of your respective hometowns will have to depend with the kind of local officials you have elected and your devout participation in the community. What I am trying to say here is plain and simple: political reforms must come first from the bottom and not on top of the political structure as pundits would like to suggest. Put bluntly, elect principled leaders in the foundational level, which is the local government then translate it up to the national tiers of the political structure.

I understand that as a rule, ethics and politics can never be merged into one. As long as the key players of Philippine politics continue to dominate the game, we can never expect legitimate reforms and genuine transformations for our country. Change must come from the outside not from within the old system. I shall propose the term “outside” to mean the youth sector of society. Indeed, this observation affirms the age-old saying that it is hard to teach old dogs with new tricks. This is especially true if we rely on traditional politicians to make meaningful reforms in the political system I am therefore deeply convinced that the youth can introduce new kind of politics within our corrupted system of government and it is in them I can foresee the reinvigoration of party principles as a democratic way of life. For one, unlike the old-timers of the present political system, the youth sector is not yet a prey to cynical thoughts. They possess purity of principles that will stand the test of solidity amidst the recurring political turmoil in our country. I have put so much faith in the youth of my generation to shoulder the burden and help educate the masses in terms of political education. Or better yet join the political mainstream and gradually infuse youthful idealism to counter the gargantuan tide of corruption and ineptitude that thrive incessantly in the halls of public offices.

The question therefore now is: how best can we determine who amongst the local candidates has what it takes to bear with the constitutional declaration that “Public office is a public trust?” I think the most decisive starting point here is for the voter to look into the candidate’s character. Verily, when I speak of character, the same should not be limited to the examination of a candidate’s public character but private as well. Necessarily, a leader must be whole. He cannot have his public character be honest but on the other hand, have his private character be deceitful and corrupt. The core ethical values like respect, honesty, and the will to distinguish right and wrong amidst over-powering temptations inherent in public office are all ingredients of a great leader. I would like to think, and as I propose in this writing, that young candidates possess the much needed character for public office. This however does not mean that all young candidates running for public office are character-proof. In fact in my hometown Isabela City (Province of Basilan) where politics is as devious as the devil, the reverse is more likely the rule. It saddens me to know that even young candidates, people I grew up with, have not lived up to the expectations of what youthful idealism should be. Albeit there are indications of immense political awareness from the youth sector these days, thanks to the Internet by the way, the political vigor and exuberance inherent in them have not been translated locally. Sadly, the local scene still remains pretty much the same. Most young candidates have nothing but well-sounding surnames, wealth and porma as part of their credentials. Visit their Facebook accounts and see for yourself how they visualize themselves as the next Philippine president when the office they seek to land on is simply that of a city councilor. I have at least one encounter with a pompous young candidate from my hometown who postures himself as the pag-asa ng kabataan. And since he flaunted his candidacy for city council in Facebook, I could not help but asked him some relevant questions about platforms and his ideas on local statecraft. To my dismay, he simply shrugged off the questions and boasted instead his supposed achievements as a young philanthropist in terms of humanitarian and civic projects. What was he thinking? Organizing party events, sponsoring a basketball team, and sitting as a judge for a gay pageant makes him qualified to be a city councilor? Is there a reasonable connection between his purported generosity and the functions of a city councilor under the present Local Government Code? Or is he posturing as gay rights advocate once elected in the city council? Let me remind him as early as now that the august office he wishes to serve is a seat of deliberations. Questions involving his views on individual liberty and the basics of government are not misplaced because as a future local legislator he will encounter these concepts in drafting ordinances. It is best, by way of preparation, that he should browse once in a while the provisions of the Local Government Code and the 1987 Constitution for enlightenment. He could have earned my respect had his sudden itch for generosity came long before the local elections but the timing is really off and the motive is highly suspicious.

Let me integrate the term “character” with party loyalty for it is here where a young candidate either manifest signs of conviction as a future leader or the tendency to emerge as a sure-fire traditional politician someday. In my writings, I have always been critical with the multi-party system as structured under the 1987 Constitution. From the democratic vantage point, apart from the fact that it is incompatible with a presidential system, such mechanism has greatly contributed to the demise of principled politics in our country. Worse, down in the local level, political dynasties continue to gain sturdy support from their constituents who are immensely benefited by patronage politics. As a result, political families have effectively replaced political parties as key institutions in the democratic polity. Again I wish to remind the readers that political parties are essential components of a functioning democracy. Without a strong party system and in the absence of political watchdogs like the academe, we can never expect political maturity from the people especially the masses. And following the bottom-up approach I mentioned earlier, it seems that the light at the end of the tunnel remains long in sight. To be sure this is not to say that under our present system there are no respectable political parties to count on during elections. In fact, despite my own misgivings on Senator Noy Aquino running as president, I have always respected the Liberal Party for having strong and reform-oriented programs of government. But because of the multi-party system and not to mention the party-list system, political parties in our country can hardly be seen as a reliable institution to bank on in terms of principled politics. Thus, elections in this country whether national or local elections, are personality-based contest rather than an issue-oriented democratic exercise.

It is therefore an imperative for the young candidates especially in local politics to understand the rudiments of the entire system so that they may be able to assess how to effectively infuse “youthful” reforms in government. Local statecraft entails more than just noble ideals or intentions but more importantly how to implement it as well. In other words, candidates must both possess pristine motives to serve the people better and a firm grasp on the basic mechanics of government. This two should always compliment each other. It is best then to join a well-entrenched political party composed of men and women with impeccable reputation and with a solid track-record on governance. However, if you find these political parties too “political” in the sense that the people who composed it are so ruthless to hold the reins of government then by all means take the road less traveled and run as an independent candidate. And stay independent at all times. It is unfortunate that in my beloved hometown some of our young candidates for local positions seem to show early signs of political opportunism if not arrogance. As I said it is fairly within the judgment of a candidate whether to join a political party or not. But to play safe and engage in double-talk do not speak much of a promising leader coming from the ranks of the youth sector. Take this young local aspirant for example, while pledging his undying loyalty and commitment to his party he also secretly supports the ruling dynasty. Rumor has it though that this young aspirant was recently fired from the party not because of disloyalty but due to fluctuating childish behavior during sorties. Some I presume opted to run as independent candidates because they feel that most political parties do not have definite programs of government other than motherhood statements. If you are neophyte, or a perennial loser and you happen to run as an independent candidate I must say that I praise your courage not to join the circus despite the odds of running without a racehorse. However there are also those who, young as they are, have already mustered the art of cunningness at this early point of their political careers. These young vultures either run under the banner of a well organized political party or run as independent candidates but nonetheless joined the bandwagon as guest candidates. There can be no logical reason for this tactic other than wanting to play both cards safely. But surely, I don’t see any principled politics here let alone the makings of a great youth leader. In times of never-ending crises, a potential leader must always takes sides on issues that define convictions no matter what the political consequences are. There is no middle-ground in the face of a power-hungry administration, either join the opposition or stay truly independent. We have had enough of these fence-sitting trapos in the halls of government. To run as an independent candidate while at the same time appearing as a guest candidate of a potent political party will certainly mislead the voters. I challenge these young candidates who are “semi-independents” if not binabae, to bolt out from these parties as guest candidates and once and for all make a firm stand on issues that will help the voters decide intelligently. These reasons make me very skeptic to take our chances on these young politicians.

After all what has been said, the bottom line is: taking the big leap towards change and reform in our government, starts in our hands, the youth. While traditional politics may have robbed some of these youth candidates/aspirants of the innocence and pristine motives, the voting youth has a duty to ground them back to where they should be. The malfunctions in our political system while largely attributed to the players of the system, we too are partly responsible for its failures. And so this coming May 10 elections, let us start a youthful revolution by choosing the right candidates for public office. The bottom-up approach as proposed above is designed to push the youth sector to take the lead on matters of governance. Again if we want meaningful reforms, change must come from the outside not from within the present political system. Simply, these new breed of politicians must not keep abreast with the old and traditional “public servants.” They, as youth, must recreate, reform, if not give breath to a genuine new breed, unbitten by the dangerous bug that brought our country into malady.

Villar and Aquino: Slogging through campaign slogans

2010-02-26T22:37:00.000-08:00

In this frenzied political season, all eyes are focused on the presidential candidates hoping that maybe, just maybe, one of them could be the messiah we all have been waiting for. Once again the masses are hypnotized by means of silly and trite campaign promises like extirpation of poverty, peace in Mindanao, eradication of graft and corruption and a lot more, name it and they could readily unleash answers that would solve our country’s plight. Yes, all of these, as they would like us to believe, can be done in just a matter of six years. What a crap! What an insult, an affront to our collective intelligence as particles of sovereignty.

Philippine politics as we all know revolves around personalities and not platforms, principles or programs of government. Because political parties are often seen as “ideologically” bankrupt democratic entities, most Filipinos vote for individuals not parties, or at the very least, the principles they represent as democratic organizations. The propensity of politicos to jump from one party to another throughout the political season clearly enhances popular disgust on the political system. Logically speaking, the seismic crack in our political system has a direct link why political dynasties and incompetent movie personalities thrive in the halls of public offices.

From this perspective, no wonder most presidential contenders are so obsessed in creating their own myths by flaunting their faces on prime time television, reinforced with profound campaign slogans which represent the issues of the day. Amongst the favorite “gasgas” themes of tradpols is the perennial problem of poverty. While poverty is a legitimate social issue of Third World democracies, sad to say that it is also in fact an effective political issue during election season. Thus, poverty being the ultimate source of the ills and inequality in our society, still remains to this day, the most exploited theme for candidates aspiring to sit in public office. Unless poverty is lessened through meaningful social reforms, populist platforms will always be the favorite campaign strategy to bank on during elections. For obvious reason, politicos readily embarked on populist theme because it aims to touch the hearts of the underprivileged segment of the electorate which by experience, determines the “winnability” of a candidate.

In the 1998 presidential elections, Erap played his cards well in convincing the masses to choose one of their own to seat in Malacanang. Anchoring mainly on a populist platform expressed in his slogan, “Erap para sa mahirap,” he was eventually elected “overwhelmingly” as the 13th President of the Republic. Erap being a “mahirap” is of course a brazen lie. Nonetheless, his campaign strategy worked well knowing for a fact that he had the upper hand in terms of mass appeal and popularity. Undoubtedly, by portraying roles such as the defender of the underdogs in the big screen, no one dared to examine his checkered past nor question the truthfulness, the exaggeration inherent in his claims as the purported champion of the poor. Conversely, the late Senator Raul Roco with all his sterling credentials, tested and unwavering commitment to principled politics finished fourth in that electoral contest for the presidency.

Today as it was before, the issue of poverty appears to be the trend for an effective campaign strategy. The most vocal and by far credible of all presidential contenders is Nacionalista Party standard bearer Manny Villar. The problem however with Villar, unlike Erap in the ’98 elections, he has no star quality to rely on. And so whatever it takes, he needs to play the “poverty card” with utmost precision. We all know his side of the story. His television campaign ads coupled with a catchy campaign jingle speak for themselves. In the end, he proposes a one-liner solution to eradicate poverty, “Sipag at Tiyaga.” Thus, as of this writing, Villar was reported to have spent a billion for his campaign, the highest so far amongst other presidential candidates. This is expected of Villar because preparation-wise, both financially and emotionally perhaps, he is the most determined to conquer the seat of power at any cost. What worries me, and I’m sure hundreds of Filipinos too share the same trepidation, is the many IOUs (I owe you) he may have incurred as a result of profligate campaign spending. Indeed politics in our country has become too expensive which only the well entrenched oligarch could afford.

If Villar’s campaign battle cry is profound and simple, Liberal Party contender Senator Noynoy Aquino, his closest rival in the surveys, has a family-oriented campaign slogan, “Mama at Papa.” This of course is not intended to belittle Aquino’s intentions but I’m merely stating the obvious. The decision of Noy Aquino after all, came as a surprise to everyone. Almost like a thief in the night, he stole the ambitions of Senator Mar Roxas to become Liberal’s standard bearer. As I have mentioned before, the perceived clamor urging Aquino to run for the presidency was merely an offshoot of Cory Aquino’s celebrated funeral. Being the symbol of the EDSA revolution, the death of the former president brought back a lot of emotions for our people. It rekindled our sense of nationhood through shared suffering in the face of a perceived indestructible despotic regime. Then suddenly, the spotlight was focused on Noy Aquino, the progeny of Ninoy and Cory, among the heroes of the EDSA revolution.

Critics both pros and cons, were quick to express their opinions. Some praised Senator Noy Aquino’s courage to take up the challenge while others expressed doubts because of his dismal performance as a legislator. The think-tanks of the Liberal Party panicked and chose to exploit the spirit of EDSA to patch up Aquino’s supposed weaknesses and lack of solid track record. Lately, Aquino and those behind his strategy opted to invest more on “character” issues which make all the more suspicious that he has nothing to offer except his family name. Surprisingly during the 1986 snap election, Cory Aquino too did the same thing when President Marcos questioned her lack of experience for the presidency. But how can we be so sure of Aquino’s character if I may ask. I barely saw him articulating his views on controversial issues during his stint as legislator. When asked about his obscure legislative track record all he could offer was that he devoted much of his time as a legislator by attending legislative investigations. Kudos then for the good Senator! But what Noy Aquino seemed to forget is the fact that legislative inquiries serve only as an aid for legislation. Simply put, legislative hearings are incidental to primary function of Congress that is, to pass laws. Very well then if so, what landmark legislation did the good Senator pass during his term as a Congressman and later a Senator of the republic? How convenient it is to deceive the public especially when majority of our people are unfamiliar with the rudiments of government and its institutions.

I think character, as a necessary ingredient of leadership, should be measured conclusively when it is being put into severe test of will power and convictions in times of insurmountable crises. In the august words of a patriot, “Seldom is a leader remembered for what he said during a crisis. He is often remembered for what he did.” Unfortunately for Aquino, we seldom see both. As a legislator, he chose to be part of the “silent minority” bloc which clearly shows his unpreparedness to become the next president of our country.

It is for these reasons that I urge the academe to take an active part in overhauling the mind-set of our people, the masses in particular when it comes to political education. Civil society organizations can only do so much. More often, they too are being utilized by moneyed and highly influential politicos to set the trend of discussion which would fit their own purported advocacies. Corruption indeed touches everything. Today, albeit more and more people engage in participatory democracy, still we have to work harder in bringing the discussion down to the uneducated masses. If we want to change the system, or at least neutralize traditional politics, we have to consider the bottom-up approach in dealing with the problem. As they say, all politics is local.

Campaign slogans no matter how distasteful, at times funny, depict the kind of politics we have in this country: perpetual exploitation of the masses by allegedly joining the poverty bandwagon. Therefore, the next president of this nation should not be solely gauged with whether you believe in Sipag at Tiyaga or you have high regards for “Mama at Papa,” rather, he should and must be measured based on his platforms and deep-seated moral principles that will enable him to defy temptations of the supposed grandeur of a public office. In the end, it is not afterall choosing between, Sipag at Tiyaga or Mama at Papa, it is choosing for our “Bayang Pilipinas.”

Next time I would be dealing with LAKAS’ standard bearer Gilbert “Gibo” Teodoro and BAGUMBAYAN’s Richard “Dick” Gordon.

A day at the Laurels

2010-01-29T09:44:00.000-08:00

Last Saturday something extraordinary happened in my life. I believe it was destiny that brought me there. Not to be melodramatic or anything, but that specific occasion is certainly one for the books. It may not be that of a big deal to some, but for a probisyano who takes interest in Philippine politics by heart, it was definitely a dream come true.

Late last year, I have written a piece about the late Salvador H. Laurel. I offered his side of the story because I felt that this man deserves a fair treatment before the bar of history. With the death of former President Cory Aquino and the consequent decision of Senator Noy Aquino to run for the presidency, the timing was just perfect. People would surely be talking about the legacy of the former president and again, the role of the obscure Vice-President Laurel could be reexamined for the younger readers. I got frustrated when my article did not generate any comment. I thought, maybe most people don’t seem to care who Doy Laurel was, and more importantly, what he did for the country. I don’t get it, how could anyone possibly think that EDSA is Cory and Cory is EDSA? She was the symbol alright, but without the moving forces that stood behind her amidst this political strife, she was just that…a symbol. Consequently, the February revolution to me, was a direct result of a long arduous process rather than a miracle from heaven. It could not have been possible had the opposition, led by Doy Laurel, remained reticent in the heat of the “protracted” political struggle. Practically alone in the wilderness, Doy stirred up the emotions of the people. Doy kept the flame burning so to speak. He valiantly fought dictatorial rule using all possible and “legal” means to help sustain the dissent and anger of the people against the rampant injustices and oppression. Never Again, was his battlecry! Now, could this be a hoax or perhaps an overstatement? I don’t think so. These are facts supported by history writers and scholars. To look the other way around just because you happen to be a devout believer of Ninoy and Cory, is outright preposterous and a narrow minded look at history. And so that article proved to be useless for quite sometime. For the longest time, that article remained unread, untouched and archived until I received an email from a person named Steve Bascos.

Steve works as staff for special projects of Madame Celia Diaz-Laurel, widow of the late Vice-president, for more than ten years now. In his email, he asked permission to re-post my article in the official website of Doy Laurel. At first I didn’t buy it. As a fledgling writer, I highly value exclusivity in all of my writings… for the simple reason that even up to this very moment, I’ve got little confidence on my written rhetoric. However, after a few exchanges, Steve finally told me that Madame Celia liked my article. My eyes suddenly grew bigger as I read the e-mail. All I could mutter was, “Is this for real?” Then a follow up, “By Celia, he meant Celia Diaz-Laurel?” My initial response was expected because Madame Celia is not only the dutiful wife of Doy but she also happens to be the author of Doy’s coffee table biography. All of a sudden, I suddenly felt edgy. I was worried that I wasn’t able to deliver Doy’s side of the story with utmost accuracy. How could this be? But it appears that Steve was telling the truth. There is indeed an official website under construction in honor of the forgotten statesman. Steve further informed me that I just earned a ticket to visit the Laurel mansion in Shaw Blvd. in Mandaluyong. I could not believe what I have just read. And so, my slightly filled calendar for the month was all suddenly marked as cancelled, as if always welcoming a new reminder: VISIT TO THE LAURELS. And so, the day did actually came.

First stop was the historic mansion built by the “Grand old man from Batangas,” Jose P. Laurel. I was told that some of the most important political decisions, be it affecting the country or Batangas, were made within the confines of the mansion. As we were approaching the main entrance of the compound, I could see an imposing 15-foot tall gate with an arbor inscribed words on top of it which reads, “Villa Paciencia.” Old balete and royal palm trees, bare witnesses to the stories of the past surround the rustic mansion. Steve then escorted me inside the mansion where supporters of Nacionalista presidential candidate were holding a luncheon meeting. At our designated table, I was surrounded by Manny Villar’s high school classmates. These not so old fellows entertained me in so many ways. Their insights on politics, business and life in general made me forget the unfamiliar and not so comfortable moment I had. They rescued me from social vultures. (By the way, I love talking to older people on social gatherings which happens not too often.)

Sitting on the left side of our table was Lorenzo Diaz Laurel, son of Doy Laurel. Larry, as friends would call him, has certainly the looks and the beguiling smile of his old man. After a brief introduction from Steve, Larry whispered to me and said, “Brod, thank you for the kind words you said about my dad.” To which I replied almost stuttering, “Oh no Larry, the Filipino people should thank your dad. We owe him a lot.” Larry nodded with a smile. Honestly, I was about to really get emotional by then. I felt Doy was the one talking to me in the person of Larry. That specific moment, I would like to believe that it was destiny taking its course. And after getting a signal from Steve, telling me it is time to go, I know it was the moment I have been waiting all day. I took no time to bid goodbye to my new found friends and let go of my brewed coffee.

Doy Laurel’s house is not far from “Villa Pacencia.” Unmindful of the endless chitchat of Larry, Steve and Miriam, this stranger was busy savoring the every little step towards what I really came for that day. And it was not too long till I found myself standing in front of the house…in flesh and bone. As soon as I stepped on the footsteps of the door, I began to imagine the faces of key political players who were Doy’s frequent visitors in this mansion. The moment I touched the door knob, I wondered if Ferdinand Marcos too touched it. My mind was really in a full circle. All these and more running in my head, I wasted no time and asked Steve to take me to Doy’s study room, as in now na! Steve, like an obedient soldier, immediately complied. Believe me, the crisp study room is far more beautiful than what you see in Doy’s official website. The pictures and paintings accentuate the wide collection of Doy. There, his book collection. I was nailed for a while. I could still not believe all of these are happening. As a book enthusiast myself, I was practically overwhelmed by his collection. His wide variety of interest undoubtedly depicts the legal scholar that he was. I saw a handful of hard-to-find Filipiniana books in his collection like Mijares’ Conjugal Dictatorship, Burton’s Impossible Dream, Ninoy Aquino’s Testament from the Prison Cell and a host of others. As I observed the entire room, it made me remember a remarkable passage from Doy’s book that struck me up to this very day as unbelievable. To all those uninformed, it was in that very room where Doy asked Cory if she intends to run for the presidency for the upcoming snap elections. Cory, as history has recorded, refused to give a definite answer. Days later, Cory eventually announced her decision to challenge President Marcos. Soon negotiations were in progress coming from both camps. Cory would sometimes deploy her emissaries to convince Doy to slide down in order to have a solid opposition. Doy’s study room, far from the prying eyes of the public, has been a living witness to all these events. If only the walls could talk as they say, history would have changed its course. I was practically in the midst of picturing all these events when Larry pulled me back to present. It was easy to pull me back…simple words such as “I saw it all.” Being the unofficial liason officer of his father during those trying times, Larry threshed out answers for the questions which are completely left out by fence sitting scholars of history. Candidly, the scenario is more like a documentary video where I get to play the role of Probe’s Che-che Lazaro, the male version, I suppose. And I would entitle said documentary, EDSA Betrayed!

Overwhelming the stories are, I, out of desperation, uttered, “Sana buhay pa si sir Doy.” Steve suddenly made a gesture pointing to a huge ancestral-type jar displayed near the window. Yes, it was Doy’s final destination…the urn which homes the ashes of the honorable statesman who could have been the 11th President of the Republic. Realizing that I was standing right in front of a great Filipino who brought a new understanding to the words, “Ang Bayan Higit sa Lahat.” Inside that urn, I said to myself, lay the remains of a man who, like his great father, lived his life for the sake of his country and his people.

I left the study room with my spirit overflowing with a new sense of patriotism. Friends have encouraged me to make money out of my writings. Or try to submit my articles in newspapers so that I may be able to gain proper recognition. Now I say to them, is this not a proper recognition? Certainly, I think it is, at least by my standards.

I was about to call it a day when I was informed that Madame Celia wishes to see me. Handing me the pre-signed coffee-table biographical book of her late husband which she wrote, was indeed icing on the cake! She wrote: To dear Chris, best wishes…I know Doy will want you to have this book. It was too much, way too much. The experience was already too unbearable for this humble follower of her husband. And so I thought, ok Pey, end of your dream. Go home. But before reality even bit me, I was lured to utopia again when I heard Madame Celia asked Steve to accompany me to the archive. At the end of the day, while going back to my reality, I was embracing a dozen of books mostly authored by no less than Doy Laurel himself. I walked out of Doy's mansion having more pride in myself than ever before. Thank you, Steve, Larry and Madame Celia… till we meet again.

Featured Article: Cellphones as close container in search and seizure analysis

2010-01-10T03:26:00.000-08:00

This month, Discourses of a Free Mind will be featuring a timely article on the constitutional right of individuals against illegal searches and seizure. Usually hailed as highly technical and legal, the issue on searches and seizure has recently tapped a medium we all can relate to and we all should be aware of-cellphones. Albeit what is being discussed in this article is a landmark American case, time and again the Philippine Supreme Court has, in numerous occasions, relied on American Supreme Court decisions when it comes to constitutional issues. Ergo, the need to fully examine the ramifications on the controversial case of State v. Smith.

The author, my brother, Atty. Ernani Diaz Bonoan is a partner of the Rebolos, Sanchez & Bonoan Law Office in Cagayan de Oro City.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Smith (Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-6426) brings to the fore the issue whether the search and seizure clause of the American Constitution (Fourth Amendment) prohibits the warrantless search of data found in a cell phone when the phone is lawfully seized incident to an arrest. Considering that our own search and seizure clause (Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution) is rooted in American constitution law and our penchant for mobile phones, State v. Smith deserves consideration.

The factual antecedent reveals that a certain Wendy Thomas Northern was transported to Miami Valley Hospital after a reported drug overdose. After questioning by the police, Northern then agreed to call her drug dealer, whom she identified as, Antwaun Smith, to arrange for the purchase of crack cocaine at her (Northern) residence. Consequently the Smith was arrested at Northern’s residence. During the arrest, police searched Smith and found a cell phone on his person. The arresting officer put the cell phone in his pocket and placed Smith in a cruiser, then searched the scene for evidence. Later, police recovered bags containing crack cocaine at the scene. While the record does not show when the police first searched Smith’s cell phone, it was however discovered that the call records and phone numbers confirmed that Smith’s cell phone had been used to speak with Northern. There was testimony that at least a portion of the search took place when officers returned to the police station and were booking into evidence the items seized from the crime scene. The police did not have either a warrant or Smith’s consent to search the phone.

Smith moved to suppress, objecting to the warrantless search of his cell phone. Relying on United States v. Finley ([C.A.5, 2007], 477 F. 3d 250.), the trial court denied Smith’s motion on the ground that cell phones were akin to closed containers found on an arrestee’s person and subject to search for the preservation of evidence for use at trial. Eventually Smith was convicted of trafficking cocaine, possession of criminal tools and tampering of evidence. Smith appealed arguing, inter alia, that the trial court had erred in refusing to suppress the evidence found on his cell phone. Unfortunately for Smith, the appellate court overruled the assignment of error, holding that the trial court had not erred in refusing to grant the motion to suppress.

The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld Smith and reversed the rulings of the trial court and court of appeals. In approaching the issue, the Court initially laid down the settled rule that searches conducted without a warrant are per se unreasonable, subject to certain “jealously and carefully drawn” exceptions. And one of those “jealously and carefully dawn” exception is the search incident to arrest, which allows officers to conduct a search an arrestee’s person and the area within the arrestee’s immediate control. Hence search of arrestee’s purse, shoulder bag, any container or any article in his person was considered reasonable. The raison d'être for the said exception derives from interests in officer safety and evidence preservation. Worth noting here is the pronouncement that these searches need not necessarily be conducted at the moment of arrest. The search can be conducted later when the arrestee arrives at the place of detention. The Court was however quick to caution that when the interests in officer safety and evidence preservation are minimized, this exception no longer applies.

In rejecting the view that a cell phone is akin to a close container the Ohio High Court hammered on the fact that objects falling under the banner of “closed container” have traditionally been physical objects capable of holding other physical objects. Since a cell phone does not contain physical objects or capable of holding other physical objects, then it cannot be considered a closed container for purposes of search and seizure analysis. Moreover, modern trend in search and seizure scrutiny recognize that it serves to protect an individual's subjective expectation of privacy if that expectation is reasonable and justifiable. The Supreme Court of Ohio proceeded and said:

Given their unique nature as multifunctional tools, cell phones defy easy categorization. On one hand, they contain digital address books very much akin to traditional address books carried on the person, which are entitled to a lower expectation of privacy in a search incident to an arrest. On the other hand, they have the ability to transmit large amounts of data in various forms, likening them to laptop computers, which are entitled to a higher expectation of privacy.

But cell phones are neither address books nor laptop computers. They are more intricate and multifunctional than traditional address books, yet they are still, in essence, phones, which makes them distinguishable from laptop computers. Although cell phones cannot be equated with laptop computers, their ability to store large amounts of private data gives their users a reasonable and justifiable expectation of a higher level of privacy in the information they contain. Once the cell phone is in police custody, the state has satisfied its immediate interest in collecting and preserving evidence and can take preventive steps to ensure that the data found on the phone is neither lost nor erased. But because a person has a high expectation of privacy in a cell phone’s contents, police must then obtain a warrant before intruding into the phone’s contents.

So, in view of the so called “reasonable expectation of privacy” standard, there can be no valid search in a cell phone’s contents unless a judicial warrant is obtained.

While Smith can be considered enlightening in resolving search and seizure issue in this jurisdiction, its relevance is somewhat doubtful in view of the acceptability of the reasonable expectation of privacy standard in Philippine constitutional law.

NEWS FLASH: Launching of Vice President Doy Laurel's Official Website

2010-01-06T06:24:00.000-08:00

To mark the 6th death anniversary of former Vice-President Salvador “Doy” Laurel, on January 27, his official website will be formally launched. It is dedicated to the youth of the land in fulfillment of his fervent desire to impart to them the legacy of a proud history. He once wrote:

“History belongs to the youth, the largest and most idealistic and
energetic segment of our population.”

“If I were to summarize the forces that brought about the birth of this nation, I would readily
attribute it to the freedom fighters and the visionaries who were all young. It
was the idealism, the daring, the pugnacity, the determination and the genius
of Rizal, Bonifacio, Gregorio del Pilar and the legions of young
heroes that brought forth the emergence of our nation a hundred years ago.

“A nation is only as strong or as weak as the memory of its people as
to who they are, where they came from, and what their forebears stood for and
fought for. If the history of a nation is blurred or vague, we cannot expect
our people to fight in defense of the motherland when she is threatened. They
may even decide to abandon it and begin anew.

“But if, like a lambent flame, we are able to keep the pride, the spirit, the love,
the vision and the memory steadily burning in the hearts of our people for the
next one hundred years, then our generation would have fulfilled its task.”

Unfolding via a medium cognizable by a sector which may not have been born
at the time of his glorious political flight, the website will give us the
opportunity to know the statesman, his life, his advocacies, his faith in our
people, his love for the country and his great belief in the Filipino youth. It
celebrates the life of a man who could have been the 11th President of the Republic.

Visit his official website at www.doylaurel.com.

To the beautiful Ms. Denise Laurel

2009-12-27T04:10:00.000-08:00

Ms. Denise Laurel, (or someone commenting on her behalf) made the following corrections on my blog entry The Honorable Doy Laurel viz;

Hello Mr. Bonoan, I read your blog through a friend a few minutes ago and although it is all of three months late, thank you for the kind words about my Papa Doy. However, please allow me to correct your information on the question that was asked during the game show. The question was asked about the year when my grandfather was Vice-President of the Aquino Administration and not WHO was the vice president of that term. Please review the footage carefully, instead of using me as a foil to make your point. I believe your guest Cielo needs to be sure about the facts before offering her comments.

I do not intend to make this as an erratum. I am torn between being an online journalist who should stand by his words and a gentleman who should concede to a lady. But I am more oriented towards my courteous inclinations. Moreover, as already blurted out, it has been three months since this specific episode was shown and my short memory does not serve me well to exactly recall what the actual question was. Nor do I have means to verify what I believe I have heard and watched that particular day. Nevertheless, these considerations are no longer necessary as what I have mentioned in the beginning, my polite leanings urge me to accept Miss Denise Laurel’s version of the story. To besmirch a Laurel, is not one of my intentions. Rather, I only wished to magnify the political prowess and career of one great man and that is, Miss Denise’s Papa Doy.

However, as I am sincerely extending my apologies to Miss Laurel, as an on-line journalist that I am, I am not letting this chance to discuss her latter assertions in her comment which are highly technical and legal. To quote, she wrote:

“The reason why I hesitated to answer the question on the date of his being a vice president was because there had been a bit of discussion on when he assumed the vice presidency. Some quarters say that he won as vice president during the snap elections against Tolentino and therefore should have been proclaimed prior to EDSA I. Others say that the revolutionary government which was proclaimed after Marcos left the country for Honolulu was the date to determine his assumption. And of course there is the oath taking ceremony. To date, the debate goes on. I hope this gives you a little more insight on who Denise Laurel is.”

As a fervent student of the law, I believe that this confusion had been finally settled in the case of Lawyers League v. Aquino (May 22, 1986) wherein the Supreme Court ruled that the Aquino government is revolutionary in nature. (see also Estrada v. Arroyo) Therefore, the oath taking which took place at the Club Filipino on February 25, 1986 serves as the reckoning period for the Aquino administration. (Be it noted that while Cory-Doy run as President and VP respectively under the auspices of the 1973 Constitution, they finished the race outside of it.)

I hope this misunderstanding will not in any way affect present or future relations with the Laurel family which I hold in high esteem.

NB: visit VP Doy Laurel's official website. Thank you to the Laurel Family for posting my blog entry.

Picture courtesy of pinoyfansclub.com

The Clutches of Martial Law

2009-12-06T03:13:00.000-08:00

It has been more than a month or so since my last entry in this site which, owing to the nature of my chosen endeavor I have no choice but to overhaul my priorities all over again. I hate to admit but for the past few months I was largely preoccupied with personal cobwebs or what I call the “viruses of the mind” which prevented me from doing what I love to do best. And so first things first, deliberately, I expunge it out of my system-good riddance as they say! Anyway, since then so many critical issues, be it legal or political, have been the center stage of coffee table and classroom discussions. I must say that during my “self-imposed interregnum”, every time an issue pops up, I always felt the sudden itch to express my ideas and write something about it. But as soon as I sat down and put my hands on the computer, the piles of documents in my bedroom seemed to say that earning a living should be on the top of my list. In simple terms, blogging then should step aside even on Sundays. As trite as it may seem, but for every rule there is always an exception. Today, I will break my fast and avail myself of the much needed excuse from my daily routine. Unfortunately the pile of documents and reading materials will have to wait for an hour or two otherwise I would be in a limbo by tomorrow. Obviously, the declaration of martial law in some parts of Maguindanao requires more than a succinct “shoutout” in my facebook account. This is where I suppose, the medium of blogging finds superiority over social networking sites in terms of meaningful and well-informed opinion. Clearly it entails a lengthy and incisive discussion on the issue for it concerns more that anything else, the curtailment of cherished liberties so protected by the constitution. Not to be presumptuous or anything, but constitutional and political issues are among the areas which I find very fascinating because it touches the very core of what it is like to be a citizen of a nation. Let us now educate ourselves on the constitutional underpinnings of the martial law declaration following the gruesome massacre in Maguindanao.

Not all people can readily understand what the essence of martial law is nor its ramifications and safeguards under the constitution. Chances are, people from different walks of life deemed martial law as synonymous to the name of President Ferdinand Marcos. In fact as evidenced of a “hangover” even lawyers, the senior ones in particular, understood the concept of martial law in line with rules under the 1973 (Marcos] Constitution. Although the traditional concepts under the previous constitutions are one and the same, the present rules under the 1987 Constitution have been improved and crafted to strike a proper balance between two competing spheres, state power and individual rights. (i.e. Can the President suspend the writ of habeas corpus without the declaration of martial law? Or vice versa. More on the checks and balances later.) Luckily as a law student, I came to know martial law as one of the extraordinary powers vested in the Commander-in-chief of the armed forces, in which case the President, to quell actual invasion or rebellion “when the public safety requires it.” But what is martial law really? What is its nature and bases on the whole constitutional scheme? In my blog post entitled, The Power that lies in the Little Girl’s Hands, I made the following observation,” Martial law is essentially founded upon the police power of the state. Joking aside, what is being referred to here is not the power vested with the police force or the PNP. Obviously, this has something to do with one of the inherent powers of the state. To be clear, the textual definition of police power is that, “power vested in the legislature by the constitution to make and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws…as they shall be the judge to be for the good and welfare of the state and of the subjects of the same.” The idea of martial law is to protect “public safety” against invasion or rebellion which in essence, is one of the concerns of police power. For these reasons, though martial law is often viewed as a monstrous power to be avoided, it likewise has its noble and necessary objectives to preserve law and order. Having learned from the lessons of history, the framers thought it wise to retain this power under the 1987 Constitution, but not without expressed restrictions and safeguards unlike the previous constitutions.

The salient provision on the “Commander-chief-powers” of the President is excessively long. Without a doubt, the new commander-in-chief provision is one of the outstanding features of the 1987 Constitution. Under said provision, while the original authority to declare martial law rest on the Executive branch, there is however an explicit command for checks and balances to achieve the desired result. As will be seen later, the Congress and the Supreme Court have significant roles to play when the nation is under the clutches of martial rule.

The power to declare martial law flows from the “Commander-in-chief” powers of the president. By virtue of Section 18 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, the president is bestowed with a sequence of graduated powers from the most to the least benign. The most benign power refers to the “Calling-out power” of the President. Thus, “whenever it becomes necessary” he (President) may call out the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. But what will happen if in the exercise of the “Calling-out power” the President fails to suppress the existence of lawless violence or prevent an impending invasion or rebellion? Faced with this kind of situation, the President can now resort to the least benign powers in his commander-in-chief arsenal to quell any actual invasion or rebellion against the state.

These two extraordinary powers are; (1) the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or (2) place the entire country or any part thereof under martial law. Unlike the “calling-out power,” the grounds for the proclamation of martial law are at best limited. Thus, the constitution is unequivocal when it states that, there must be an actual invasion or rebellion and “when the public safety requires it.” The initial determination whether there is an actual invasion or rebellion will have to be decided by the President as the Commander-in-chief. But the story does not end there. After the proclamation, the President will now have to persuade Congress on the soundness of his actions. At this point, the 1987 Constitution clearly delineates the participation of Congress to check on the possible abuses of power by the chief executive when acting as Commander-in-chief.

As mentioned earlier, the new commander-in-chief provision under the 1987 Constitution is quite long. Nonetheless let us capture the gist on the extent of the President’s military powers, the martial law provision in particular.

After the initial determination on the existence of an actual invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, the President can now place the country or any part thereof under martial law. The duration of such proclamation shall not exceed sixty (60) days otherwise it shall be automatically lifted. Within forty-eight (48) hours following said proclamation, the President is obligated to submit a report, whether in person or in writing, to the Congress. If not in session, owing to the urgency of the situation, Congress must convene within 24 hours without need of a call. And in that regular or special session, Congress by a majority vote of all its members and voting jointly, may either revoke said proclamation or upon the initiative of the President, extend the period of the proclamation. By this time, it is Congress who will determine the duration of the proclamation depending on the persistence of the invasion or rebellion and when public safety calls for such extension.

From the wordings of the 1987 Constitution you can easily discern the intent of the framers when they drafted the Commander-in-chief provision-a recognition of the separation of powers principle. Both the President and Congress must agree to a certain extent that there is indeed a factual basis for the declaration of martial law. To which, as may be seen later, the Supreme Court in the exercise of judicial review can validly inquire and if found wanting, it will not hesitate to make the hammer fall and heavily! If you will observe, although the President has the sole power to declare martial law under the constitution, Congress may revoke said proclamation and it cannot be set aside by the President. In the same manner, Congress cannot extend the period of martial law motu propio, the initiative must always come from the President as the Commander-in-chief. In simple parlance, there is an inherent “give and take” relationship between the two co-equal departments of government in order to safeguard the power structure envisioned in the constitution.

Given the above discussion, in the end the buck stops with the Judicial branch mainly, the Supreme Court. Let us examine then the function of the Supreme Court under the new rule.

On historical note, Marcos Supreme Court in the case of Aquino v. Enrile had put an imprimatur on the legitimacy of the Sept. 21 proclamation. That infamous case drastically modified the original scope and effects of martial law as embodied in the 1935 Constitution. Now, all of these are purely of historical and academic value because of the new provisions in the 1987 Constitution abandoning the doctrine laid down in the Aquino case

As the bastion of the rights and liberties of the people, the Supreme Court also has an indispensable role especially in times of national crisis. Par. 3 of Section 18 Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution says, “The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty (30) days from its filing.” Before the birth of the 1987 Constitution, the power of the court to review the “determination” or “judgment” of the President as Commander-in-chief was a constitutional “no-no”-a clear violation of the time-honored principle of separation of powers. It is often viewed as a forbidden territory of the courts. Now this is no longer the rule. Although traditionally a “political question,” the 1987 Constitution has clearly abandoned this rule in favor of a much libertarian approach by making it a justiciable controversy. Hence, any citizen can now question the sufficiency of the factual basis of the martial law proclamation.

It should be borne in mind that mere proclamation of martial law does not automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus much less the operation of the constitution. During the state of martial law, civil courts and legislative bodies shall remain open. In line with this, military courts and agencies are not conferred jurisdiction over civilians where the civil courts are functioning. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall only apply to persons facing charges of rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion. Remarkably, any person arrested for such offenses must be judicially charged within three (3) days otherwise he shall be released.

Tomorrow we will be expecting petitions filed before the Supreme Court questioning the legality of GMA’s martial law declaration in Maguindanao. I surmise that the petitions will challenge the factual bases for the imposition. Simply put, does the situation in Maguindanao constitute “invasion” or “rebellion” which will warrant the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the imposition of martial law? From the looks of it the situation in Maguindanao could only fall within the definition of “lawless violence,” which is not among the situations contemplated for declaring martial law under the Constitution. Note that the martial law provision clearly states, “In case of invasion, or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.” As explained above, the President is armed with a sequence of graduated powers from his Commander-in-chief arsenal. Although initially the President makes the determination as to the existence of lawless violence, invasion or rebellion, the Supreme Court in proper cases can invalidate the imposition. Fingers crossed for now!

A Political First

2009-10-15T19:05:00.000-07:00

Today I would like to write about campus politics, if I may. Back in college, I too had my fair share of triumphs and a bunch of disappointments as a budding student leader. As you may well know, I hail from a place where politics is synonymous with money, racial domination, and a little bit of assassination. During my time, school politics was not much of a difference. It has all the necessary ingredients of 'real politik.' Backroom-dealing, double-speaking and yes, horse-trading too were all part of this impish game called "campus politics." No wonder why most of my erstwhile colleagues are now making their respective niches on local politics. I guess, campus politics from the ol' days really helped them a lot in terms of training and experience. As for me, I had a change of heart and landed in another field but that of course, is a different story.

The day I enter school politics was the start of my transformation. Who would have thought that I would shift my interest to academics and school politics? I was a happy-go-lucky guy. I prefer grunge music over political theories. I had no political blood running in my veins. Even my mother could not believe at first that his prodigal son had just hanged his guitar on the wall and finally said goodbye to his teenage dream of becoming a rockstar. Good grief, my political science professor saw something in me. I don’t really know at that time what she meant when she said I had the potential to excel in academics. And so she groomed me as a student leader and persuaded me to run for school senator.

At the outset, joining school politics was a perfectly natural thing for me. Some say I was destined to be a pompous school politician because of my outspoken convictions as a student. That may be true, but I was also a friendly creature according to my kindergarten teacher. But let me add a caveat. (Pardon my legalese tone) I have a monkish lifestyle. Hanging out with few friends comes once in a blue moon. For a guy who values privacy more than anything else, I’m not quite sure if I could bargain it away just like that. Entering campus politics I thought meant “plastikan” with fellow students. Although I had the ample experience of being in front of the “hooting throng,” this time it would be entirely different if not strange. For one, being on stage then was easy provided I had my signature RJ guitar with me. But I mustered enough courage this time since I don’t want to disappoint the faculty teachers of the political science department. I vowed to take the lead if only to inspire others to do the same.

I can still remember the day when the presumptuous presidential candidate invited me to join his political party. He was full of the usual platitudes befitting a traditional politico. All the while he thought I was not privy with his kind of politics. But he was careful enough with his choices of words making it appear less manipulative. I had no choice really but to support his candidacy. Apparently, it was a three-cornered presidential election with two contenders belonging to same department-the education bloc and the other from the political science department. Following the old Roman strategy of “divide et impera” or divide and rule, I thought it wise to run under the latter. And so to solidify our position, I finally said yes. It never occurred to me that our senatorial line-up was a complete mess. Most of my party-mates were better off as clowns and street buffoons. Surely I thought, even with the best decisive political strategy there’s no way we could survive the campus elections. But the Machiavellian in me sensed an opportunity to bolster my image by standing on the shoulders of the clowns, if you know what I mean.

My humble alma mater has three (3) campuses situated in three different municipalities. My decision to join a well entrenched political party was partly because of geographical consideration. Who would want to join a race without a racehorse? In political terms, that would be a sure-fire political hara kiri. And not to mention the racial profiling if you are a Christian candidate. Muslim votes comprise more than half of the voting population in my school. A political party with Muslim candidates would surely help you familiarize and reach out even to the marginalized students in the isolated areas. These factors led me to conclude that I had to blend-in otherwise I would lose the elections big time.

I practically ran for school senator under a principled and idealistic platform. Instead of the usual political blah blah, I envisioned to improve the quality of parliamentary rules in the Student Council. My idea was too remote and peculiar since students could not relate with the kind of reforms I was bound to do if elected. During campaign sorties, I took the pains of introducing parliamentary procedures and its intrinsic function in the inner workings of any legislative body. Sounding almost like a pastor in the pulpit, I explained the dual purpose of my advocacy. First, to improve the quality of deliberation and proceedings in the council, and second, to have well crafted council resolutions which would truly reflect the interests of the students. I saw to it that after my political lecture, students were allowed to ask questions which would enhance student’s participation in the process. Soon I learned the technique on how to encourage even the tamest students to speak their minds and courageously ask serious questions. I made it a point that for every classroom, I would exude the aura of an educated common man whom they could rely and approach any time if elected.

In one of our campaign sorties, I promised the students that the newly constructed building of the Student Council belongs to them-our masters. Touche! Touche! I was already echoing President Magsaysay’s populist platform. In that particular campus, I was surprised by the spontaneous reaction of the students everywhere I went. I was practically mobbed. Most of them kept on chanting my name short of a mantra. And mind you, I was only aiming for the position of school senator not the presidency. Soon I became more and more familiar with the rules of school politics. I learned to smile even with people whom I secretly hated before. I also learned the art of handshake and of course how could I forget, the eye contact. In short, I quickly developed into a traditional politician or trapo.

Finally the big day came. In some designated precincts at the main campus, I was the frontrunner in the senatorial race. Unfortunately, when the votes from the distant campus arrived, I was surprised. I didn’t get any votes! It was a clear miscalculation on my part because I failed to visit that particular campus during the campaign. I simply relied on my political party to represent my advocacy. I learned that like local politics, campus politics too requires a personal touch with the voters. You have to socialize with them, laugh with them, eat with them and help them with their personal needs as students. Advocacy can take its backseat, what matters most is your presence as a candidate. And so from top 3 of the senatorial race, I ended up on the 11th spot much to my dismay.

As predicted, I was the sole survivor of our political party. Our standard bearer, despite his superb experience in political strategy, lost his presidential bid in an unprecedented three-cornered fight. The voters simply dismissed him as someone too ambitious to become student government president. For my part, I suppose my youthful idealism helped. I convince majority of the school population about my sincerity and my desire to introduce honest-to-goodness reforms in the student council.

At the council, I was surprised to learn that I was practically alone in the wilderness. While there were three of us who belonged to the opposition bloc, the two seemed impervious to the numbers game in the council. They were more concerned with their own agenda. This however did not affect my mind-set as a robust school senator. Soon, the distribution for various committees was announced. It was the administration’s first declaration of war against the opposition. The three of us found ourselves in a ditch. I was assigned to head the inutile and nominal body called the Ethics Committee. Obviously, I was under the impression that ethics and politics can be one and the same. Every time I called for a committee hearing no one cared to appear much less attend the meetings. Sensing that I was furious over the behavior of the council members, the council secretary advised me not to take things so seriously. I let it pass hoping that my next move would be a big splash.

My first initiative then as duly elected school Senator was to review the outdated internal rules of the council. I deemed it necessary before we could get down to business seriously. But the obstinate members of the administration party shoot down my proposal by majority vote. Once again, I was completely demolished. Since most of them were already on their second and third terms as school senators, they would invoke “self-invented” internal rules to shut me up. Some even accused me of grandstanding during sessions every time I would raise settled parliamentary tenets. But I was up for the challenge. Having mastered the art of parliamentary rules by heart, I managed to score some points. In one of our council sessions, my finest hour I guess, I stood up and denounce the administration’s well-orchestrated move to discredit me. I lambasted the members of the majority for acting as rubberstamps of the council president. They listened intently and waited for their turns to hit me back but I managed to delay the proceedings until the session adjourned. This tactic went on for days. Soon, they too felt that all their proposals never reached the stage of voting because I would raise various well-grounded objections. The result would always end up in a deadlock. I was bound not to compromise my advocacy as a school senator. At the risk of calling me a “pain in the ass” I stood my ground confidently. Not until the timely intervention of the council president. He was quite influential being the son of a local public official. More than that, he had the unwavering support of no less than the incumbent Congressman at that time who for some reason, was very much concerned with school politics.

Together with his parrot-like executive secretary, the Council president paid me a visit at my residence. After a few beating around the bushes conversation, he made his point almost directly: “I want you to join my administration.” Sounds like the “real thing” Isn’t it? Politely, I laid down my position on the crisis besetting the Council. I expressed my frustrations over the actuations of majority of the members, who were his cohorts in the Council. Initially I said that we could never perform our job as Council members because the majority was more concerned on party affiliations than principles. I made it clear to him that all I really wanted was to elevate the stature of the Student Council as a premiere student organization. But more than this, I expressed my intention to make the Council a highly-competitive student body not only within the province but also all throughout the region. It may sound a far-fetch idea but I sincerely believe that with all the kidnapping and killing incidents reported in the media, all we could do to help our province was through academic ventures. But how could we do this I ask, since the majority refuse to support my ideas in the Council. He agreed and offered his hand as a gesture of unity. Then I proposed a compromise, sort of a win-win solution for the opposing sides. As a council member, I was fully aware of the privileges attached to my position as school senator. I vowed to use it in order to advance my advocacy. In exchange for my conditional support, he promised to approve and provide adequate funds for every school-related regional seminar during his term. For me, it was our opportunity to compete academically with other reputable schools within the region. This would also help boost our morale as true blue Basilenos in the field of academics.

True to his word, Mr. President brought unity within the council. Except for a few parliamentary outbursts, sessions were now more dignified and peaceful. The quality of deliberations too improved because of my persistence to raise the standards of council debates. From then on, the Council became a pro-active student organization. Later, owing to the nature of our position, we were also handpicked to represent our school in various academic seminars within the region. Most of the time, we would go head to head with student leaders from different universities and colleges in Mindanao. Each and every encounter would be intense, exciting and challenging. Because of our legislative training in the Council, I earned the monicker as the “outstanding parliamentarian” in one of the seminars we have attended. These were only some of the Council’s modest achievements in a span of one year but it really meant a lot to me. It was, after all, the reforms I envisioned for my humble alma mater. I just hope that the seeds we have planted fell on fertile grounds and will ultimately bear fruit in the years to come.

Indeed, experience is a great teacher. I learned so much about politics because of this brief yet exciting experience. For one, I am glad that during my journey as a student leader I never compromised my principles and ideals in favor of personal gains. I managed to come out of the snake pit called “politics” unscathed, uncorrupted and morally intact. But of course, that was school politics. I still keep in touch with some of my friends who are now enjoying the real game of fame and power. I must admit though, that some influential quarters in our town encourage me to throw my hat in the political arena for next year’s local elections. I suppose they think, and I agree with them, that youthful idealism will help foster the much needed reforms in the local political landscape.. But I turned them down for personal reasons. After years of contemplation, I still prefer to work in the academe and hopefully join the noblest profession someday. (And earn the much coveted A-T-T-Y before my name!) I have made my choice, and I know it is the right one. Till next time!

The Honorable Doy Laurel

2009-10-02T03:42:00.000-07:00

I am a bit finicky when it comes to local television shows these days. The best television programs usually start at eleven o’clock in the evening until the wee hours of the morning. But there is one television show at noontime which I hardly miss especially during Saturdays. I have to confess then, that I am an avid viewer of ABS-CBN’s noontime game show Game Ka Na Ba. Not because it stimulates my mind the way the Weakest Link does, but I find it very entertaining. Saturday episodes are my favorite because I get to watch celebrity contestants spill their brains into bits of pieces on national television. Entertaining isn’t it? Celebrity contestants never fail to amuse me when they answer questions confidently only to find out that it was the most outrageous answer that anyone with basic education could imagine. They are indeed entertainers! And so one fateful Saturday, I got fortunate to see celebrity Denise Laurel play. Damn, she is pretty but I wonder though if she could hurdle the questions. When it was her turn, game show host Edu Manzano fired the question: Sino ang bise presidente ni Pangulong Corazon Aquino? To my surprise, she just smiled with a little bit of "pacute" facial expression. Absolutely clueless, Chairman Edu finally gave the answer which caused a shocking reaction for Denise. It was her grandfather. All that Denise could utter were the words, “Sori Papa DoY!” Yes, she should be sorry not only because she happens to be the granddaughter of a statesman and she can't answer that simple question, but more so, as an educated Filipino.

When Senator Mar Roxas announced his avowed withdrawal from the 2010 presidential race in favor of the much talked about Senator Noynoy Aquino, almost everyone at Club Filipino went home teary-eyed. As soon as I learned about this momentous event, I can’t help but remember the words of British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge when he said that all news is old things happening to new people. True, because somewhere in the pages of our history, there was once an honorable man who exemplified supreme sacrifice as a public servant. A man who chose to set aside his dreams and personal ambitions when he stepped aside and agreed to have Cory Aquino run for President against the incumbent President Ferdinand Marcos under his own political machine. That man is no other than the late Salvador H. Laurel or simply “Doy” to many.

Doy Laurel undoubtedly served his country well for almost thirty years occupying various high governmental positions. His devotion to public service had been tested when he was Vice-President, Senator, Assemblyman, Prime Minister, Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Chairman of Philippine Centennial Commission. A UP law graduate with Master of Laws and Doctor of Juridical Science from Yale Law School, Doy Laurel was a brilliant law practitioner and founder of the Citizens’ Legal Aid Society of the Philippines (CLASP). His commitment to help the poor, such as rendering free legal assistance to indigent litigants through CLASP, was further reinforced when he authored five (5) “Justice for the Poor Laws” (a.k.a. Laurel Laws) while in the Senate. Because of his audacious dedication to the causes of law and justice, Doy Laurel was given international recognition as the “Most Outstanding Legal Aid Lawyer of the World for 1976.” But despite all of his achievements and recognition as a public servant, Doy Laurel’s legacy as the beacon of light during the darkest days of martial rule has received not much attention from contemporary history writers. More than this, his sacrifices and efforts to help install the Aquino government after the February Revolution were brushed aside and spurned by President Cory Aquino’s “inner circle.” Let us then revisit his legacy as one of the political titans of Philippine politics.

After the assassination of Senator Ninoy Aquino on August 21, 1983, anti-Marcos protest all over the country soon escalated. The opposition camp, although splintered in many ways, saw this as an opportunity to consolidate its forces and challenge President Marcos’ Kilusan Bagong Lipunan candidates in the 1984 legislative election. To solidify the splintered opposition parties, Doy Laurel painstakingly spearheaded the formation of the United Nationalist Democratic Organization (UNIDO) as the umbrella organization of various opposition parties composed of erstwhile Nacionalistas and Liberals, Raul Manglapus’ National Union of Christian Democrats and Nene Pimentel’s Partido Demokratikong Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan. His tremendous and tedious efforts to unify the opposition against the Marcos-controlled Batasan Pambansa proved to be successful when majority of UNIDO candidates won in the 1984 legislative elections. The opposition then seized this victory to challenge the mandate of President Marcos in a presidential election. Ever conscious of his image as a benevolent dictator in the prying eyes of the international community, President Marcos had no choice but to seek for a fresh mandate from the people. And the only way to this, as the opposition would like to believe, was to call for a snap election. But who could possibly run much less win, against the incumbent President Marcos? To many, Doy Laurel was the logical candidate for the opposition following UNIDO’s victory during the 1984 legislative elections. But some quarters believed that Cory Aquino, owing to her popularity as the widow of a slain martyr, was the right candidate to defeat President Marcos in the polls. Nonetheless, Cory kept her silence amidst the overwhelming clamor pushing her to run for the presidency in the event President Marcos calls a snap election. Meanwhile, Doy Laurel, the driving force of the opposition, moved quickly to unify anti-Marcos camps to push for his candidacy as the opposition’s standard bearer. But before accepting any nomination from the UNIDO, Senator Doy wanted to make sure that no other presidential candidate would run outside of UNIDO. He was convinced that, given the peculiar circumstances at that time, the opposition could never risk of having two presidential candidates for the opposition bloc. He feared that with two presidential candidates, the end result would be catastrophic for they would split the vote of the opposition and eventually lose the election. President Marcos, with all government powers and resources at his disposal, could simply smash them in the polls with impunity. Clearly, the overriding objective then was for the opposition to have a single candidate backed up by a potent political machine such as UNIDO. Such was the opposition’s master plan.

Despite rumors that Cory Aquino might eventually run for the presidency, Senator Doy wanted a confirmation straight from the horse’s mouth. And he did. To avert any possibility of a divided opposition, Senator Doy advised Cory that even with a single opposition candidate the chances of the dominant opposition against the incumbent were slim. Cory then assured Doy “more than a dozen times” that she would never seek nor accept any nomination to run for the presidency. Unbeknownst to Senator Doy, that false assurance made by Cory was only the first among the series of reneged promises which will adversely rock his political career in the years to come. In a convention which was widely considered as the most colorful nominating convention in contemporary Philippine political history, Senator Doy Laurel was eventually nominated as UNIDO’s presidential candidate. To prove her point, Cory even made an appearance and delivered a speech supporting the opposition’s presidential candidate to run against President Marcos. Expectedly, to reassure the American government of domestic political and economic stability, President Marcos announced on November 3, 1985 via American television that he was conceding to the opposition’s call. He desperately announced that snap elections will be held on February 7, 1986.

Senator Doy’s high hopes to become the opposition’s leading candidate in the 1986 snap election soon waned. Cory had a change of heart. Two days after President Marcos announced the date of the snap election, Cory suddenly heard the voice of God while praying at the Pink Sisters Convent. Out of the blue, Cory announced her divine anointment from above and offered herself for the presidency if presented with a million signatures. The fact of the matter is, after the blatant assassination of Senator Ninoy Aquino, the Aquino family and the opposition continued to inflame the hearts and minds of the people by enhancing the martyr’s image. Anti-Marcos rallies were soon everywhere. Most of the time, Cory Aquino would deliver speeches and poignantly narrated how her husband suffered in the hands of a repressive dictator. Overnight, from an obscure housewife, Cory became more and more visible in anti-government demonstrations calling for the restoration of democracy. She promised, as she always does, to continue the legacy of her beloved husband. Obviously, it did not take too long for Don Chino Roces to gather the required number of signatures when Cory imposed this as a condition for her to ran as president.

Meanwhile, amidst this turn of events, Senator Doy laurel was already busy campaigning as the opposition’s standard bearer under UNIDO. As soon as he heard the news, he immediately went out of his way and met Cory at her house on Times Street. Senator Doy tried to dissuade Cory from running. He told her that she should not run and instead remain as the people’s symbol against the perceived forces of evil. “Let me do the fighting and take the blows for you,” said Senator Doy but Cory remained unperturbed.

Fearing that the Marcos government would eventually collapse and no definite opposition candidate yet, Cardinal Sin decided to mediate between Doy and Cory. Initially, Cardinal Sin never asked anyone of them to withdraw from the race. He warned them however, that should both of them run for the presidency the people will be sad because surely, both of them will lose in the snap elections. In the fifth meeting held at Puyat residence in Quezon City, Cory finally spoke of her true intention in running for the presidency. Accordingly, she was not really interested in running the government. All she wanted was to be a mere instrument or symbol to remove the ailing dictator and restore democracy. She then offered Doy the Prime Ministership and promised to step down after two years or so. In addition, Cory offered “thirty percent (30%) of the Cabinet to Doy and the remaining seventy percent to be appointed after prior consultation between them.” Present during this meeting were, Doy’s elder brother Senator Sotero Laurel, Cory’s daughter Ballsy and the late Vicente Puyat. Based on the truthful account of Doy Laurel, the agreement was reduced in writing and Cory initialed them item by item “on the left margin of the document.” Doy, believing that he had a better right to be the opposition’s presidential bet, simply asked for more time to decide.

Indeed, it was perhaps the hardest and the most crucial decision that Doy Laurel could ever make during his lifetime as a public servant. Alone in a beach house, Doy wrestled with the following questions which will determine his decision to step down in favor of Cory: I knew Ninoy well. His word was good. But I did not know Cory well enough. Could I trust her? Would her word be good as Ninoy’s? Or was she a mere instrument of her family interests and her hidden advisers? But more importantly, Doy remembered the sacrifices of his esteemed father, the late President Jose P. Laurel, when he chose to give way to Ramon Magsaysay to go against the ailing incumbent President Quirino. Doy pondered, What would my father do if he were in my place? How would he resolve this dilemma? It was at this moment that Doy made the historical decision to step down in favor of Cory Aquino all for the termination of dictatorship and restoration of democracy.

The following morning after his brief sojourn at the Matabungkay beach house, Doy went back to Manila to meet Cory. During that meeting, Doy laid down his cards. He told Cory that he had decided to give way to her but on one condition: She should run under the dominant opposition party, UNIDO. But proud Cory sensed sinister motives on Doy’s proposal. She declined to run under UNIDO! This turn of events left Doy with no other choice but to run. In his statement before the press, Doy passionately exclaimed, “I can sacrifice myself. I can sacrifice the presidency. But I cannot sacrifice the people who have suffered so much and worked so hard all these years , risking life, liberty, even honor, to put up the political machine that is now capable of toppling the Marcos dictatorship.” That same day, Doy Laurel filed his certificate of candidacy with the COMELEC as UNIDO’s standard bearer for the upcoming snap elections.

But then again, Cory changed her mind. This time she was willing to run under UNIDO. She further reinstated her proposal that she will be a mere ceremonial president in the event they will win the elections. In a matter of time, both camps finalized their agreement. In Doy’s account what transpired that day was this:

Cory then turned into my two brothers and said, “i-formalize na ninyo and ating pinagkasunduan. But kuya Pito replied, Hindi na kailangan i-formalize pa iyan. Lalong masakit lamang kapag hindi tinupad. I reminded Cory that she already initialed all the items we had agreed upon on a piece of paper at the residence of Teng Puyat. Maliwanag na maliwanag na naman an gating pinagkasunduan. Ang mahala’y and nilalaman ng puso.”

Later that day before midnight, Cory and Doy went to the COMELEC and filed their respective certificates of candidacy as the official candidates of UNIDO.

After the February revolution, Cory and Doy were catapulted to power as President and Vice-President respectively. Whether Cory and Doy truly won the snap elections still remains a disputed question to this very day. But in truth and in fact, the 1986 snap elections had been clearly superseded by virtue of the people power revolution. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that none of Cory’s supposed pre-election promises to Doy were ever implemented. In less than a month after the EDSA People Power revolution, Cory Aquino “unilaterally” abolished the 1973 Constitution and installed a revolutionary government via Proclamation No. 3.From the legal standpoint, although the snap elections were held under the auspices of the 1973 (Marcos) Constitution, Cory and Doy however, finished the electoral race outside of it. Consequently with the abolition of the 1973 Constitution, the Batasan, the Supreme Court and all national (including the Prime Ministership) and local positions were likewise abolished. For a time and prior to the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, Cory Aquino wielded extraordinary powers. Doy Laurel, Cory’s Vice-President maintained that he was never consulted nor made to participate in any of the decision-making process leading to the establishment of a revolutionary government. Vice-President Doy Laurel, despite his brilliance and not to mention, the sacrifices he made for the country, was clearly out shadowed by Cory Aquino’s cordon sanitaire. To make matters even worse, Vice-President Laurel had undeservingly earned the sobriquet of being a “wimp” under the Aquino administration. Up to his dying day, Vice-President Doy Laurel maintained that Cory Aquino reneged on her promises to share power with him if they win the election. Cory Aquino on the other hand believed that the revolutionary nature of her rise to power had given her direct mandate to rule. “Whatever happened to all those promises you made, Cory?" said Doy. Cory then gave a halting reply, “I was told…that the EDSA revolution…erased all those promises.”

I never met nor talked to Vice-President Salvador H. Laurel in person. But there is one specific encounter which I would like to share. Back in 2001, VP Doy was invited as guest in Cito Beltran’s ANC television program. There, VP Doy exuded his brilliance as a lawyer and a public servant. His razor-sharp intellect was very much intact despite years of retirement from actual public service. I got lucky when Cito Beltran allowed viewers to ask questions thru text messaging. And so I hurriedly framed my question but I was not quite sure what to ask so I settled for a simple one: What was your favorite subject in law school? I was elated when the text message was read by Cito and VP Doy politely answered, “Thank you Chris, mine would have to be constitutional law.” The mere mention of my name alone was enough to cause shock waves in my ears. Then he recounted his law school adventures and his teaching career when he was still professor at Lyceum Law School. I was surely elated by his account. Then he proceeded to talk about what truly happened after the EDSA revolution and the way he was treated during the Aquino administration. I couldn’t help but question what made Cory Aquino pushed a brilliant and statesman-like Vice-President away from her administration. Now, I could safely say I know the answer: a symbol is a symbol, no more, no less. I hope Denise Laurel and other Filipinos who suffer from the same amnesia or apathy will find time to remember a person named Salvador “Doy” H. Laurel-a true statesman and a nationalist.

Sources from my mini-library:

The Anti-Marcos Struggle by Mark Thompson
The Impossible Dream by Sandra Burton
Neither Trumpets Nor Drums: Summing Up the Cory Government by Salvador H.Laurel
Picture courtesy of The Salvador H. Laurel Official Website

CONGRATULATIONS!!!

2009-09-25T01:33:00.000-07:00

"Wala sa design yan, its the substance!"

I never imagined that my blog would be nominated much less chosen as one of the finalists for the upcoming Philippine Blog Awards. But they just did, and it makes me proud to be a Filipino cyberspace writer. And to my worthy opponents in the advocacy category, best of luck guys!

In lieu of this, I express my utmost gratitude to Ms.Vivian, Librarian of the Adamson University Thomas More Law Library for the nomination. The 10 finalists for best advocacy blog are as follows:

1.Autism Society Philippines
2.CyberRon
3.DISCOURSES OF A FREE MIND
4.Fide Quarens Intellectum
5.Filipino Deaf from the Eyes of a Hearing Person
6.Filipino Freethinkers
7.Foreclosure Philippines
8.Gloria Macapagal Arroyo RESIGN!
9.Greenpeace Southeast Asia
10.Nurses Notes

The awarding ceremony for Luzon will be held on October 9 at PETA Theatre, Quezon City; while the ceremonies for Visayas and Mindanao will be held on October 18 at Ayala City Sports, Cebu Business Park and October 24 at Pearlmont Hotel, Limketkai Drive, Cagayan de Oro City respectively.

A warm thank you to the organizers of Philippine Blog Awards!!!

Mabuhay ang mga Pinoy Bloggers!!! Goodluck! Fingers crossed!

Me and Ferdinand Edralin Marcos

2009-09-18T03:08:00.000-07:00

I woke up one morning and told myself to write something personal and post it in my blog. And so I went to the coffee shop and did some thinking but it seems I was not in the mood to express my thoughts. Reading law books all night, commercial law in particular, somehow clogged my brain and I can do almost nothing but sleep. An hour later, I ordered another cup of coffee but still my mind was in shambles I just could not write anything. Then my third cup of freshly brewed coffee came. This time, it came with a hint which aroused my political hormones as a Filipino. The inscription in the cup states, “The Filipino is worth dying for.” Yes, after the death of a former president, the heroism of Ninoy Aquino is once again resurrected but sadly more like a fashion statement. Almost everyone these days, ranging from the commoners in the congested streets of Quiapo to the elitists living in Makati, have some sort of nationalistic and moral awakening of their own. These factors best explain why people mistakenly equate Noy Aquino for good presidency if elected in 2010. I can’t help but wonder if in their hearts and minds, people are truly convince that nationalism is an essential component to make this nation great. Or could it be a mere offshoot of former President Cory Aquino’s celebrated funeral?

Again, I may sound pessimistic and to some even a “kontrabida” in my writings. “How could you question Noy Aquino’s capacity to run the country?” I hear this all the time almost like a broken record. In fact in one of my articles, someone accused me of being “unFilipino” for allegedly “attacking the person of the late Senator Ninoy Aquino,” when I took the liberty to question his motives in his quest for the 1973 presidency. Obviously, that furious reader, who by the way considers himself as a liberal, failed to grasp the contextual history of my statement. There are also those, like my good friend BG, who tried to convince me to reconsider my position on Senator Noy. Amidst this brouhaha, my answer is simple: they missed the point. My brief essay on Senator Noy Aquino was clearly an objective analysis of the present political landscape. I attempted to present a bleak picture of Phillipine politics and the inescapable reality that in our political culture, personalities are preferred over principles and ideology. While I admit that my essay on Senator Noy Aquino was far from being an exhaustive and academic discourse on Philippine politics, truth be told however that I was able to hit the mark. To the critics, their respective judgments are clouded by their emotions which, apparently, betray objective kind of thinking in terms of electing leaders to lead this nation

Now back to the subject of nationalism. Modesty aside, long before the death of former President Coy Aquino, I have always been nationalistic and close friends can attest to this. But my deep-seated nationalism does not come from my humble education. Nor does it come from the beloved martyr Ninoy or saint Cory. It emanated from only one extraordinary person whom history has “arguably” adjudged as monster, dictator, and human rights violator. Brace yourself now, that person is Ferdinand Edralin Marcos (FM for brevity) the 6th President of the Philippine Republic.

In retrospect, I can still remember the snap election in 1986 when Cory Aquino challenged FM in the presidential arena. I was five (5) years old then when my father (a Marcos loyalist owing to his Ilocano blood as opposed to my mom who was a Coryista) brought with him campaign paraphernalia of Marcos-Tolentino. The campaign stickers were my favorite, so I happily pasted it in my improvised wood bicycle. And so while busy playing in the streets with friends, little did I know that I’m campaigning as well for FM in my own little way. I could still sing a portion of the catchy campaign jingle of Marcos-Tolentino to this very day. As a kid, I have no idea what martial law was or what could be the significance of Cory’s candidacy as president. My political slumber was however interrupted because my mother, the ever passionate SIBIKA teacher, taught me first-hand about Batas Militar and People Power revolution. My interest in history led me to witness how FM was being slaughtered in Phillipine history books and even encyclopedias. He was pictured out as the ultimate source of the ills and failures of our nation. For quite some time, my faith for FM dwindled until I reached the age of nineteen (19) years old.

Let me tell you a funny story which I fondly remember because it has something to do with my own political awakening. Not too long ago, I was the designated motorcycle driver of my parents. My duty was to fetch them every Sunday afternoon in church after bible study. And so, one fine Sunday afternoon my father told me to fetch him at exactly 2pm because he had other engagements so I have to come early. When I arrived, he told me to wait in the church basement because the bible study was not yet over. As I went to the pastor’s library, I saw an old little book among the gigantic biblical references on the shelf and so I got interested. As I took it out from the shelf, I was struck by the title which reads, “Notes on the New Society,” signed Ferdinand E. Marcos. So I browsed the book and after a while I caught myself hooked with his discourses on martial law hand in hand with the structural reforms under the "New Society." By this time, I was convinced to commit a petty crime. Whatever it takes, I want to continue reading the book. And so while no one was watching except God of course, I stole the rare masterpiece. I was bound never to return it even at the risk of police torture if caught red handed. But God moves in mysterious ways, the pastor saw me as I was about to leave the premises with the book in my pocket. I instantly gave lawyer-like explanations and soon the pastor realized the irony of it all: a political book in a church library? “It’s all yours Pey!” said the addled pastor. Without much further ado, I grabbed the book in the jugular so to speak. And so I studied the book and read it over and over until I fully understood its complex yet remarkable content. Soon, I was already assiduously debating with my mother much to her dismay. Now, apart from my other Marcos’ book collection which were mostly acquired from obscure bookstores in Avenida (i.e. Tadhana, The Democratic Revolution in the Philippines and Revolution from the Center), the “Notes on New Society” has always been a standout in my mini-library.

If there is one thing which separates Ferdinand Marcos from other Philippine presidents, it has to be his sense of patriotism. He was a genius alright, we all know that, but has anyone from this generation knows his ideology by heart? To the uninitiated, the idea behind the “New Society” was based on an ideology that emphasized individual and national discipline, and the sacrifice of personal liberties in the name of economic development. As a student of political science I know for a fact that in any polity practice often fails theory. The way I see it, President Marcos clearly went overboard with the implementation of martial law. His supposed radical yet noble reforms to cure the ills of a sick society were practically miscalculations and that I have to give in. But for the benefit of the youth of my generation let me tell you this: an objective approach on President Marcos’ sense of nationalism will present an alternative diagnosis as to who we really are, and what we can do as Filipinos to help our country. History books coupled with media attacks are quick to condemn Marcos without even explaining his idea of nationalism which prompted him to declare martial law on September 21, 1972. In fact, one of the major television networks blames Ferdinand Marcos up to this day for the Plaza Miranda bombing despite strong evidence to the contrary. (Even Senator Jovito Salonga, a victim of that incident and feisty critic of FM, attest to this fact. See: Salonga’s autobiography: A Journey of Struggle and Hope). Is this what you call fair or unbiased reporting in journalistic parlance? If President Marcos is evil in the eyes of history, certainly the late Senator Ninoy Aquino is no saint at all. History writers tend to be selective in their writings on martial law and the EDSA people power revolution, but to assure the reader, with Senator Ninoy Aquino I must say I walk the extra mile in my readings. I do not intend to justify the excesses committed during martial law like the pending cases on human rights violations. Nor it is my intention to downplay the heroic deeds of Senator Ninoy Aquino and former President Cory Aquino as defenders of democracy. To defend Ferdinand Marcos against the gargantuan tide of history entails more than writing a piece about him. I vowed that someday when the chips are down, I may be able to write a book about this man who loved his country so much even at the risk of historical condemnation. Like most of you, I too have my own way of understanding what nationalism is. I too as a Filipino, have my own justifications on why I adhere to a certain kind of ideology that influences my kind of thinking. But one thing is clear, at least to me, with the passage of time Ferdinand Marcos to this day stands tallest in the pantheon of Filipino Presidents.

The present nationalistic hullabaloo is at best superficial. I think it has something to do with our colonial attitude aptly called, “ningas kugon.” From my observation, today, nationalism is nothing more but a fashion statement. Ask anyone, the youth in particular, what Ako Mismo or Ako ang Simula dog tags truly means, and the answer is quite pathetic but true: “Sunod sa uso lang pre!” But for those who are hard core nationalist like my fellow writers in the blogosphere, I admire them and it makes me proud to be a Filipino. Writing is such a powerful medium to expose your idea on nationalism because it transcends borders. Let me then end my discourse with a thought. Nationalism does not depend on age, education, profession or status in life. Whether you are a lawyer, doctor, teacher, engineer or even just a lowly clerk in government offices, you are a Filipino. You have the power to change society in your own simple way. If in the end Noy Aquino or Erap Estrada inspires you to be a true nationalist, then be my guest, express your thoughts and spread the word!

PBA0914s26rn

Liberal Party for President

2009-09-12T18:12:00.000-07:00

There seems to be great expectations coming from some sectors of society that Senator Noynoy Aquino will introduce a different kind of leadership if elected as president. The present clamor for change brought about the death of a former president has put the good senator on the center stage of Philippine politics. Like his heroic parents who arguably fought dictatorship under the aegis of democratic ideals, Senator Aquino is hard pressed to continue the fight. Sink or swim however, he has to take on the challenge. I do not want to sound pessimistic but I have the uneasy feeling that unless Senator Aquino will be able to show his accomplishment as a legislator, He will never get my vote!

Don’t get me wrong, but in Philippine politics, voters choose their leaders not on the basis of platforms or democratic ideals but on the strength of popularity. Politicos readily recognize the need to be popular at any cost, all in the name of political power. From electoral surveys and television commercials, politicians invest millions of pesos just to infiltrate the minds of the bakya crowd which represents the majority of the voting population. I always deplore these kinds of political gimmickry because it does not only deceive the underprivileged segment of our society it also belittles the role of the masses as particles of sovereignty. Indeed, poverty is one of the most recycled issues deliberately used by politicos to gain political victory. As the saying goes, “necessitous men are not free men.” This practice etched deeply in our damaged political culture is at best pathetic circular if we continue to act as passive voters.

Let me cite my personal experience as a voter. For two consecutive presidential elections, I had always been on the side of Aksyon Demokratiko party founded by no less than the late Senator Raul Roco. He was also the standard bearer of said party during the 1998 and 2004 presidential elections. I consistently voted for him not on the basis of his capacity to win as president but because of his principles and accomplishment as an outstanding legislator. Expectedly, my candidate lost twice in his presidential bid. This experience, no matter how distasteful to my political sensibilities, has not changed my convictions on how to choose political leaders in the succeeding elections. And believe it or not, except for the senatorial posts, my candidates hardly win the elections both in the local and national tiers.

Now focus on the present political landscape. I think the choice on whether to vote for Senator Noynoy Aquino or perhaps Celebrity Duets champion Bayani Fernando as president must be seen in this light. Apart from being a symbol or icon of change, voters must look into the track record of Senator Noynoy Aquino as a legislator and whether he truly represents the ideology of his political party. For one, the Liberal Party has always been a politically potent machine with clear-cut ideological foundations. Its past and present membership speaks for itself. I have always respected liberal stalwarts such as Franklin Drilon and Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan, both as lawyers and distinguished legislators. But what does a Liberal truly stands for? What happens if, come 2010 we will be having a Liberal sitting in the Malacanang? I think this is the proper way to look at things when we elect political leaders and that is, principles over personalities.

When we talk about liberalism, the first thing that comes to mind is the concept of freedom. With the emergence of political parties by virtue of the multi-party system under the 1987 Constitution, the concept of freedom has evolved tremendously in the political mainstreams. I wonder whether these political parties and their members truly understood what freedom really is and how it blends with the vast powers of government if placed in actual practice. I understand the arguments of those who supported the multi-party system when this was deliberated during the 1986 Constitutional Commission that framed the present constitution. While the multi-party system sought to democratize political parties and in effect giving the voters a myriad of options or alternatives during elections, the vitality of this mechanism however proved the exact opposite. In trying to rectify and erase the vestiges of the Marcos regime, the multi-party system was nothing but an affirmation of a damaged political culture. Political parties in the Philippines, except perhaps the established Liberal Party, come and go. After elections, they just disappear (some join or merge with the administration party for obvious reasons) only to resurface again during elections.

With liberalism as espoused by the Liberal Party, the concept of freedom is absolutely non-negotiable. In essence this is what liberalism is all about and some people from different walks of life could identify themselves with this basic democratic idea. In one of his essays, German political analyst Ronald Meinardus describes in brief, what liberal thinking is all about, viz:

“Liberal governance always strives to promote and increase the freedom of all members of society. It aims at establishing a framework that permits the citizens to manage their lives according to their own preferences. Government should restrain from controlling citizens and instead, respect and defend individual rights. Liberal governance implies that everyone be treated equally regardless of race, social status, views and beliefs or other personal preferences. Here the religious factors comes in, arguably a most disruptive element in many parts of the world. In a liberal order, state and religion are separated.”

Theoretically, liberalism posits two school of thoughts on the concept of freedom. According to Dr.Meinardus the most prominent of the two competing thoughts is the one that elevates the postulates of freedom over state powers. Thus, "One group of liberal advocates defines freedom in a more narrow fashion focusing on the promotion of liberty against state power. These liberals, who in the United States have come to be termed "libertarians" argue that the state poses the main threat to freedom. Therefore they argue, freeing the citizen from government regulation should top any liberal agenda. Liberalism obviously contributed to the growth of democracy all over the world. In historical terms, the great liberal achievements have been made the spread of democracy, the establishment of the rule of law, respect of human rights and last but not the least, the expansion of the market economy.

Unlike his father, Senator Noynoy Aquino is a man of unquestionable character and motive to run for the presidency. Does he have what it takes to maneuver the ship of state towards the right direction? That question to me is somewhat a grey area for now. I have not yet seen nor heard closely Senator Noynoy Aquino’s views on various issues concerning freedom of expression versus governmental powers, freedom of religion versus governmental regulation, and of course individual liberties. I also would like to hear him debate with his fellow presidential contenders on various pre-election fora like the ones sponsored by major television networks in the country today. I am sure the good senator has good insights on political, economic and social issues. Aside from the usual speeches on the advancement of democratic ideals, I have yet to see him defend democracy in the truest sense of the word. How about his position on Constitutional change or perhaps the Visiting Forces Agreement? These are only some of the pressing issues he has to contemplate as early as now. I do not consider myself as an absolute liberal nor a conservative type of citizen. But part of my ideology leans toward the protection of individual liberties under a stable constitutional democracy. Whether Senator Noynoy Aquino or the Liberal Party represents my kind of politics or thinking is a question that remains to be seen in the next few days. Abangan!

Some Thoughts on Morality

2009-08-19T04:25:00.000-07:00

Have you ever wondered why there is such a thing as right and wrong? I’m sure you did. But I bet, you never bothered to inquire further much less visit the nearest library and do some philosophical or religious readings. “Why bother, It’s not worth my time” a friend of mine said. Then he continued, this time with a pragmatic and ringing response, “From where I sit brod, the idea could have been implanted in my head since I was born.” I was initially taken aback by his answer. I told myself he was supposed to be inquisitive if not a skeptic like me. I should know this for a fact. For several times, I had engaged in a heated cockfight with him way back in law school. It took me a while to realize that, like his indecisive response, his Catholic faith too suffers from the same foundational cracks. At that precise moment, all I can do was to sympathize with him. I felt sad because I have known him as a devout Catholic and a spirited defender of faith. Yet, when his reasons on faith are put to stringent test, I can obviously see the inconvenient irony. Like a mentos candy, his faith appears to be solid and cool on the outside but breaking down inside. Pardon the pun, but I can think of no better analogy than this. Well, for a time aren’t we all? I will not try to second guess your response if the question is presented before you. Tough issues on faith and life are not the most convenient topic to be talk about in coffee shops or dinner tables. They are often viewed as utterly boring and anticlimactic. In fact, when I raise this issue in one of our drinking sessions, a drinking buddy of mine pounded on the table and said, “Pare, what are you talking about, aren’t we suppose to have fun? Yes, alcohol and faith are not perfect buddies. At least, I got the point this time.

In the philosophical arena, when a well-informed atheist wants to argue that God does not exist or that He is simply a pigment of our imagination, the arguments appear to be so convoluted for anyone bereft of philosophical consciousness on the topic. I find it frustrating when Christians shy away with these kinds of intellectual objections. And to make it more candid, a typical Christian will respond by saying, “God forgives you bother” or that “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus!” BAM! That goes straight to my stomach. Pathetic isn’t it? My point here is simple. As Charles Colson puts it, “The Bible commands us to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. If we fail, we will find it increasingly difficult to present the gospel and we will lose influence in the culture.” In my essay entitled, “Why I am still a Christian” I dealt with the existential aspect of faith and reason to support my Christian beliefs. I narrated in part my supposed intellectual doubts on the meaning of life, the origin of morality and ultimately, the existence of God. By way of conclusion, I encourage the readers that it is perfectly normal to encounter doubts and objections if only to strengthen their Christian faith. Through doubts we continuously pursue the truth.

Going back to my friend in law school, what does he mean when he said that “the idea could have been implanted in my head since I was born”? Seen in the philosophical context, his response raises two possible assumptions. He seems to accept that there is some kind of a moral standard from which to distinguish right from wrong. But am I suppose to infer based on his response that that he posits a moral law giver, that is God as the source or revealer of that moral standard? Or can morality exist apart from God? The problem however is not as simple as these two assumptions.Time and again, philosophers and defenders of faith wrestled with this question. The usual old-age arguments for or against God’s existence could be summed up in four major points; (1) the argument from (or to) design, (2) the first cause argument, (3) the argument of morality, and (4) the existence of evil. Of these philosophical arguments, I find the case for morality as the most persuasive evidence to prove the existence of a deity. Not because it is the easiest one amongst the usual objections, but my preference has something to do with my own existential and philosophical journey.

In discussing morality, one cannot simply set aside God in the picture. God as the utmost revealer of right and wrong, provides us with a moral point of reference or a starting point from which to establish our meaning and purpose in life.To put it more bluntly, without Him, everything in this world is meaningless. My point then is this. If God is not in the picture in terms of defining what morality is, what then could be our moral framework from which to distinguish right from wrong? The impact of a Godless society is of course terrifying and very dangerous. How then can Adolf Hitler justify his horrible actions when he exterminated the Jews during the World War II? Or that of Josef Stalin, when he masterminded the large-scale murder of his own people? Were they appealing to some sort of a moral justification for their actions? The answer is yes. This is where the term morality becomes a free-for-all concept for everyone to enjoy. Now then, what could be the moral point of reference for saying that the Holocaust was a moral act? Hitler and Stalin as masters of their own fate clearly subscribed to the atheist worldview-the absence of belief in the existence of God. They deplore Christian theism and religion in general, as something that hampers human progress. Nietzsche for instance viewed religion as the nadir of human progress because it elevated such concepts as morality, repentance, and humility. To him, we cannot build a civilization of power based on these Christian virtues. Now how about that as an objective moral criterion? Logically, having no point of moral reference (except perhaps Nietzsche idea of civilization) to arrive in an objective moral standard, Hitler and Stalin decided to invent their own system of right and wrong. A system to be determined solely on the basis of personal taste or individual preference. Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky was right when he said that without God everything is permissible. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to discern the ramifications of a Godless society. Without God, we cannot have objective moral guidelines to follow. What we have is a purely subjective discernment on where to distinguish right from wrong.

Now, lest I be accused of bias, let us assume for the sake of argument that God is not an essential element in determining right and wrong. Otherwise stated, take out God in the picture and see if we could at least have an objective standard for morality.

In his magnum opus Critique of Pure Reason, philosopher Immanuel Kant attempted to justify a system of right and wrong solely based on the power of reason. Simply put, a moral framework conceived apart from God. In Can Man Live Without God, renowned Christian apologist Dr.Ravi Zacharias simplified Kant’s two simple theses to support his proposition in this manner; First, he asserted that the rules of morality were rational and hence compelling for all rational beings…His foundational premise was clearly and without equivocation that human beings could arrive by unaided reason at a normative dictum for right and wrong. Second, he believed that mankind had within itself the capacity to perform that “ought” in its most noble demands upon the will. Therefore by our reason we can know what is right, and by our will we can do what is right. Under the first, the implication is clear: since the purported rules of morality are in essence reasonable, it is but proper for men as rational beings to follow such rules. The second however is a bit thorny when viewed philosophically. Like any other philosophical theories, Kant’s assertions have several consequent assumptions. It seemed that Kant had the illusion that man is basically good. And that man had an inherent capacity to distinguish right from wrong at first sight using pure reason alone as its basis. As correctly pointed out by Dr. Zacharias, in order to build a reasonable and coherent ethical theory, one must first establish the telos or the purpose and destiny of human life. To Christians, the so called telos is easier to find for there can only be one source of a man’s purpose and destiny in life, and that is God as the revealer of right and wrong. Now, non-believers may raise the argument on the need to establish initially the “purpose” and “destiny” in order to become moral in the theistic sense. The answer is a bit simple: one must have at least a valid starting point or a moral point of reference for one to discern an objective moral standard. That “ought” discernable by men as pointed out by Kant, was the same “ought” which prompted Hitler to exterminate the Jews en masse. That fateful event in human history was the logical consequence of a moral standard structured upon pure reason coupled with man’s desire to play God. The point I wish to make here is this, without the telos centered upon the character of God, any ethical theory will eventually lead to man’s destruction. I can see no point of commonality here, what we see are purely whimsical and subjective moral standards for everyone. What may be reasonable and moral for Hitler may not be reasonable for Mother Teresa isn’t it? In one of the gas ovens in Auschwitz, Hitler's words were inscribed-I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of conscience, imperious, relentless and cruel. Now how about that for a moral point of reference? Are we supposed to trust our own reasons here in determining what morality is? These are some intriguing questions that even Christians must consider in sperading the word of God to non-believers and ultimately to the atheists.

And so to my good friend, it has been my ardent wish that you will find time to read this article so you may be able to position your faith in the right direction. While I do not claim philosophical or intellectual superiority in this writing, but my point is crystal clear: the idea of morality points only to one direction as its primary source and that is God. Kant was right when he said that “man is a rational being.” In the same way, I dare say we Christians too are rational believers of God and followers of Christ. Let us converse about our Christian faith and defend God against intellectual or philosophical objections because in the end we are in fact honoring God as the ultimate source of man's wisdom. Make no mistake about this.

Note:
I highly encourage everyone to read Dr.Ravi Zacharias' critically acclaimed book Can Man Live Without God. This marvelous book basically "interrupted my philosophical slumber" as a Christian. I urge you to do the same.

Among Ed and the State

2009-07-24T03:58:00.000-07:00

Alas, the messiah has spoken! Last Tuesday Pampanga Gov. Eddie “Among Ed” Panlilio has declared his intention to join the 2010 presidential race after hearing God’s voice. To begin with, as fellow believer in Christ I will not question the validity of his claim nor question the authenticity of the “voice” as one coming from heaven. But let me separate my ecclesiastical thoughts for the moment and offer a few secular observations concerning Among Ed’s controversial statement. Reading between the lines, what I’m trying to say is this; a mixture of politics and religion is a dangerous precedent in any body politic. At least that is what my history book says. In the realm of politics even the most despicable aspirant for power can recite scriptures or can freely claim that he is the duly anointed one much less a statement coming from a saintly character like Among Ed. Even the “little girl” from Malacanang claimed, to a certain extent, that her presidency is but a product of divine intervention. Yes, like Among Ed she also received divine instructions and no one dared to challenge her to prove the veracity of his statement. Nonetheless, I will dispense my political analysis on this issue. My utmost concern has something to do with the legal separation of two major institutions in our society, the Church and State, as commanded by no less than the Constitution.

While I highly welcome Among Ed’s decision to run for the presidency for the May 2010election, there is however one thing I would like to clarify with his upcoming presidential bid. For all intents and purposes, Among Ed has not technically abandoned priesthood even while serving as governor of Pampanga. In fact, he can regain his stint as a priest had he lost the local election. I’m not quite sure this time what will be the position of Among Ed owing to the fact that he will be eyeing for the highest position of the land. In an interview, Among Ed said that he would formally request for dispensation from the Church upon filing his certificate of candidacy. Nonetheless, he was quick to reiterate that he would want to go back to priesthood should he lose in his presidential bid. Seen on its face, the statement of Among Ed can be confusing if not deceiving. Priest-on-leave or not, he is still a priest. The Church on the other hand seems to play the political cards too close to its chest. In refusing to endorse the candidacy of Among Ed it does not however give a clear and decisive statement on his membership on the clergy. I may be wrong in all this, but if Among Ed wins the presidency, it will also mean one thing-a silent victory for the Catholic Church. I urge the Church to do something about this to erase any doubts concerning Among Ed’s candidacy.

Under Canon Law, priests are not generally allowed to participate in partisan politics or hold public offices involving the exercise of civil powers. But from the looks of it, this prohibition is more of an exception rather than the rule. To be clear, the soundness of this rule is not entirely our concern, let the politically potent CBCP or the feisty Archbishop Oscar Cruz handle this problem. My pressing question however is this: If there is indeed a Canon law violation when clerics hold public offices, does it necessarily follow that there is a constitutional breach? In other words, will there be a violation of the separation of Church and State principle if Among Ed will eventually become the next president of the Republic? I will try to answer this question to the best of my knowledge on the rudiments of constitutional law.

The Constitution by way of a general principle says that, “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.” Furthermore Article III, Section 5 enunciates that, “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (Also known as the "non-establishment clause.") The idea behind this principle is best explained by Justice Isagani A. Cruz in this wise, “The rationale of the rule is summed up in the familiar saying, “Strong fences make good neighbors.” The idea is to delineate the boundaries between the two institutions and thus avoid encroachments by one against the other because of a misunderstanding of the limits of their respective jurisdictions. The demarcation line calls on the entities to render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.” The rationale behind this principle is too obvious, a merger between the church and state tends to destroy government and degrade religion. This does not mean however that both institutions must treat each other with hostility. In fact, the Constitution itself recognizes the beneficial aspects of religion to promote the well-being of its citizens and the nation as a whole. Unlike our preceding constitutions, the Preamble of the 1987 Constitution uses the phrase, “imploring the aid of the almighty God,” to be more consistent with Filipino religiosity. Tax exemptions are also given on properties used directly and exclusively for religious purposes. The Church on the other hand, openly participates on various political and civil issues affecting the government. The Church, especially in our country, has always been on the frontline of our political history and has somehow directed the course of the ship of state.

But then again the Constitution marks the thin line between these two key institutions. If you will examine the wordings of the constitutional provisions, the thrust of the principle is strictly geared towards the State and not the Church. Conversely, the provision on the separation of Church and State is a limitation directed upon the State and it’s institutions-primarily the government. The provision on the Bill of Rights for instance, cautions the State not to pass laws which will otherwise favor one religion over the other. Certainly, who has the power to pass laws, the Church or the State? Obviously, it is the State as represented by its legislative organs mainly, Congress and to a certain extent, the local legislative bodies. On historical angle, under the Spanish regime, the Church was clearly empowered to perform acts or issue directives which have the force of law. Now, the civil powers have been reverted back to the state. At any rate, the rule under constitutional law is clear; the state must always remain neutral in its dealings with various religions. Moreover, the inclusion of the “non-establishment clause” in the Bill of Rights elevates the principle of separation of Church and State in the same category with other constitutional precepts such as the due process clause, the rights of the accused, freedom of expression and many more. What then is this the clear import of this analysis? Apparently, in one sense these constitutional rights protect individuals against the vast and intrusive powers of the State. In another sense, the constitution strictly limits the awesome powers of the state in relation with individuals. Thus, while the State can legislate anything and everything under the sun, it cannot however pass laws which run contrary to the limitations set forth in the Bill of Rights like the “non-establishment clause.”

In view of this staid disquisition, the desire of the venerable Among Ed to run for the presidency while ethically challenged (as explained above), the same may be constitutionally defensible. It has always been my burden to offer a sensible explanation whenever friends raise the billion dollar constitutional question on church and politics. Can the church endorse the candidacy of Among Ed or perhaps Bro. Eddie Villanueva? To this, my usual answer would be a resounding yes. Certainly, the Church just like any secular organization can freely participate in the “marketplace of ideas” especially on matters of public concern like presidential election. The wall of separation does not preclude the church to exercise constitutional guarantee of free speech and expression and the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. The more difficult question though is when a churchman decides to run for public office. Worse, what if he wins the election and thereby assumes the public position? In the 2004 presidential election, Bro. Eddie Villanueva of the Jesus Is Lord church joined the presidential race but miserably failed. In my hometown Zamboanga, an amiable priest tried his luck for the mayoralty post against a more experienced and prominent candidate in the parochial political arena. Like Among Ed, he too heard the voice from heaven. Unfortunately, the churchman failed to muster enough votes and lost his mayoralty bid fair and square. The candidacy of Among Ed as governor of Pampanga in the 2007 local election relatively changed the face of Philippine politics. Consequently, he became the first ever Filipino priest to sit in public office. And because of this major turning point, no one dared to lift a finger questioning the legality of Among Ed’s assumption as governor of Pampanga. But still, the billion dollar question remains unsettled. Nonetheless, the participation of "churchmen-politicians" in the political arena indicates the need for alternative “apolitical” candidates other than the traditional players during elections. And in doing so, the supposed high wall which separates the church and the state remain intact, at least in the constitutional sense.

As mentioned earlier, my concern is not focused on Among Ed’s preoccupation to aspire and perhaps even to lead the nation as the highest official of the land. But here’s a thought, what is constitutional is not necessarily moral. Personally, I have nothing against Among Ed if he really wishes to introduce genuine political reforms in our country, we should all be grateful about that. But that is not the issue here. With this piece, I challenge the Catholic Church to strip naked Among Ed’s sotana the moment he files his certificate of candidacy for the presidency. The Catholic Church certainly has the sole authority, whether on the basis of Canon law or any religious dogma to rule on Among Ed’s case. Frankly, I know nothing about church discipline or church tribunal procedures applicable to churchman like Among Ed. I trust that the Church will exercise prudential judgment on this matter. As for Among Ed, will it be priesthood or politics? Either way, it’s all or nothing. Take your pick father!

REFERENCES:
The 1987 Constitution: A Commentary by Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas
Constitutional Law by Justice Isagani A. Cruz
The 1987 Constitution

THE POWER THAT LIES IN THE LITTLE GIRL'S HANDS

2009-07-13T22:49:00.000-07:00

There is a talk going around recently that because of several bombing incidents in some parts of Mindanao the “little girl” (If I may use the phrase of my constitutional law professor.) from Malacanang might impose martial law in no time. The charge, according to news reports is that the President is out to use the bombing incidents in Mindanao and the heightened alert in the metropolis to declare a state of national emergency. From there, it will eventually lead to the declaration of martial law. What is the catch then? Well, I think what the opposition is trying to say is that by declaring martial law the President can stay in power beyond her term. Surely if this will happen, we will be facing a “No-El” scenario come May 2010. The administration however strongly denied this speculation claiming that this is just another propaganda spearheaded by the opposition to cast the President once more in a bad light. In a press interview, Secretary Remonde assured the public that the government can solve the bombings without declaring martial law. I’m sure they can, but are we suppose to trust Arroyo administration nowadays following the Conass fiasco? I think not. Call me a pessimist, but this administration has an unusual hobby of tinkering with the constitution not only once but many times! Personally, like my conviction against the notorious HR 1109, I am not inclined to give this administration the benefit of the doubt on this issue as well.

Propaganda or not, the clear import of all this is for us to examine the constitutional safeguards in place whenever the “Commander-in-chief” so decides to declare martial law under the auspices of the 1987 Constitution.

History tells us that our country had such a tragic experience with martial law. In fact, the mere mentioning of the term alone may be enough to cause alarm and fear to the sensibilities of every Filipino. Like the name “Voldermort” in the Harry Potter series, martial law also has its share of evil and horrible connotations in our country. But one may ask, if martial law is such an evil concept in Philippine history, why did the framers of the 1987 Constitution sought to retain this power in the hands of a robust “Commander-in-chief”? Why not scrap it altogether and bury it for good? To these questions, a sneak glimpse on the essentials of martial law in the context of American constitutionalism is fitting

Martial law is essentially founded upon the police power of the state. Joking aside, what is being referred to here is not the power vested with the police force or the PNP. Obviously, this has something to do with one of the inherent powers of the state. To be clear, the textual definition of police power is that, “power vested in the legislature by the constitution to make and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws…as they shall be the judge to be for the good and welfare of the state and of the subjects of the same.” The idea of martial law is to protect “public safety” against invasion or rebellion which in essence, is one of the concerns of police power. The difference however is that while police power is ordinarily lodged with the legislature (meaning the law making bodies of the state), martial law powers had been placed in the hands of the President as the Commander-in-chief of the armed forces. In his recent Philippine Daily Inquirer column entitled “What is martial law?”, Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas has this observation, “What is peculiar about martial law as police power, however, is that, whereas police power is normally a function of the legislature executed by the civilian executive arm, under martial law, police power is exercised by the executive with the aid of the military and in place of “certain governmental agencies which for the time being are unable to cope with existing conditions in a locality which remains subject to the sovereignty.”

The September 21, 1972 declaration via Proclamation 1081 issued by then President Ferdinand Marcos was “technically” based on the 1935 Constitution. Back then, there was no specific jurisprudence (decided cases by the Supreme Court) on martial law. Thus, the martial law provision in the 1935 document was to be commonly understood in line with the American concept as to what martial law is in the strictest sense. According to a noted American law professor, martial law was an instrument for insuring public safety in times of emergency and for protecting the continuance of normal civil government. The clear implications from this traditional view would have to be first, martial law was not meant to be a substitute for civil government. Second, it was never meant to supersede law. And lastly, it neither calls for the suspension of constitutional rights. These were the inherent restrictions directed upon the administrator of martial law as commonly understood at least in the context of American constitutionalism. Significantly, this concept had been impliedly incorporated in the martial law provision under the 1935 Constitution.

What happened under the Marcos regime was a total deviation from the normal route to attain the martial law objective-“public safety” whenever the state is threatened by invasion or rebellion. To accomplish the purported “objectives” of the Sept. 21 declaration, President Marcos as the martial law administrator, armed himself with extensive powers by exercising legislative powers as well. In a blink of an eye, the theory behind the vitality of martial law as “state self-protection measure” had been put to a stringent test like never before. The draconian decrees issued by the President were later affirmed (in short, the court legitimized the actions of President Marcos.) by the Supreme Court as necessary measures to attain the objectives of the Sept. 21 declaration.

For these reasons, though martial law is often viewed as a monstrous power to be avoided, it likewise has its noble and necessary objectives to preserve law and order. Having learned from the lessons of history, the framers thought it wise to retain this power under the 1987 Constitution, but not without expressed restrictions and safeguards unlike the previous constitutions.

The salient provision on the “Commander-chief-powers” of the President is excessively long. Without a doubt, the new commander-in-chief provision is one of the outstanding features of the 1987 Constitution. Under said provision, while the original authority to declare martial law rest on the Executive branch, there is however an explicit command for checks and balances to achieve the desired result. As will be seen later, the Congress and the Supreme Court have significant roles to play when the nation is under the clutches of martial rule.

The power to declare martial law flows from the “Commander-in-chief” powers of the president. By virtue of Section 18 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, the president is bestowed with a sequence of graduated powers from the most to the least benign. The most benign power refers to the “Calling-out power” of the President. Thus, “whenever it becomes necessary” he (President) may call out the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. But what will happen if in the exercise of the “Calling-out power” the President fails to suppress the existence of lawless violence or prevent an impending invasion or rebellion? Faced with this kind of situation, the President can now resort to the least benign powers in his commander-in-chief arsenal to quell any actual invasion or rebellion against the state.

These two extraordinary powers are; (1) the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or (2) place the entire country or any part thereof under martial law. Unlike the “calling-out power,” the grounds for the proclamation of martial law are at best limited. Thus, the constitution is unequivocal when it states that, there must be an actual invasion or rebellion and “when the public safety requires it.” The initial determination whether there is an actual invasion or rebellion will have to be decided by the President as the Commander-in-chief. But the story does not end there. After the proclamation, the President will now have to persuade Congress on the soundness of his actions. At this point, the 1987 Constitution clearly delineates the participation of Congress to check on the possible abuses of power by the chief executive when acting as Commander-in-chief.

As mentioned earlier, the new commander-in-chief provision under the 1987 Constitution is quite long. Nonetheless let us capture the gist on the extent of the President’s military powers, the martial law provision in particular.

After the initial determination on the existence of an actual invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, the President can now place the country or any part thereof under martial law. The duration of such proclamation shall not exceed sixty (60) days otherwise it shall be automatically lifted. Within forty-eight (48) hours following said proclamation, the President is obligated to submit a report, whether in person or in writing, to the Congress. If not in session, owing to the urgency of the situation, Congress must convene within 24 hours without need of a call. And in that regular or special session, Congress by a majority vote of all its members and voting jointly, may either revoke said proclamation or upon the initiative of the President, extend the period of the proclamation. By this time, it is Congress who will determine the duration of the proclamation depending on the persistence of the invasion or rebellion and when public safety calls for such extension.

From the wordings of the 1987 Constitution you can easily discern the intent of the framers when they drafted the Commander-in-chief provision-a recognition of the separation of powers principle. Both the President and Congress must agree to a certain extent that there is indeed a factual basis for the declaration of martial law. To which, as may be seen later, the Supreme Court in the exercise of judicial review can validly inquire and if found wanting, it will not hesitate to make the hammer fall and heavily! If you will observe, although the President has the sole power to declare martial law under the constitution, Congress may revoke said proclamation and it cannot be set aside by the President. In the same manner, Congress cannot extend the period of martial law motu propio, the initiative must always come from the President as the Commander-in-chief. In simple parlance, there is an inherent “give and take” relationship between the two co-equal departments of government in order to safeguard the power structure envisioned in the constitution.

Given the above discussion, in the end the buck stops with the Judicial branch mainly, the Supreme Court. Let us examine then the function of the Supreme Court under the new rule.

On historical note, Marcos Supreme Court in the case of Aquino v. Enrile had put an imprimatur on the legitimacy of the Sept. 21 proclamation. That infamous case drastically modified the original scope and effects of martial law as embodied in the 1935 Constitution. Now, all of these are purely of historical and academic value because of the new provisions in the 1987 Constitution abandoning the doctrine laid down in the Aquino case

As the bastion of the rights and liberties of the people, the Supreme Court also has an indispensable role especially in times of national crisis. Par. 3 of Section 18 Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution says, “The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty (30) days from its filing.” Before the birth of the 1987 Constitution, the power of the court to review the “determination” or “judgment” of the President as Commander-in-chief was a constitutional “no-no”-a clear violation of the time-honored principle of separation of powers. It is often viewed as a forbidden territory of the courts. Now this is no longer the rule. Although traditionally a “political question,” the 1987 Constitution has clearly abandoned this rule in favor of a much libertarian approach by making it a justiciable controversy. Hence, any citizen can now question the sufficiency of the factual basis of the martial law proclamation.

It should be borne in mind that mere proclamation of martial law does not automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus much less the operation of the constitution. During the state of martial law, civil courts and legislative bodies shall remain open. In line with this, military courts and agencies are not conferred jurisdiction over civilians where the civil courts are functioning. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall only apply to persons facing charges of rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion. Remarkably, any person arrested for such offenses must be judicially charged within three (3) days otherwise he shall be released.

I will not consider myself as a feisty critic of Gloria Arroyo’s administration. I prefer to deal with the legal or constitutional issues surrounding her stint as the President of the Republic. Time and again, I deplore whenever this administration preach “good governance” or “public welfare” at the expense of the fundamental law. That “unusual hobby” or “baka kc makalusot” mentality shows how public servants visualize the rule of law to suit their preoccupation. If you will observe, both the Conass issues and the martial law “speculation” have a common denominator-perpetuation of political power. Indeed, absolute power corrupts absolutely! In any case, we should be sensitive and vigilant enough to protect our fundamental law against those who wishes to hold power in perpetuity.

I just hope that the awesome power that lies in the little girl's hand will be utilized under highly extreme situations as envisioned in the constitution. Given her fetish for power, I wonder if she will ever make the coup de grace on this issue. Abangan!

My Ever Present Past: A journey to my music with the Butterfingers

2009-07-02T00:11:00.000-07:00

“Where are we goin,fellas?”
“To the top,Johnny!”
“And where’s that?”
“To the toppermost of the poppermost, Johnny!”
-The Beatles

It was a rainy Monday afternoon when I decided to simply hail a cab rather than taking my usual bus expedition on the way to law school. As I was about to put on my headphones, the taxi driver switched on his car radio and did a brief surfing on the radio dial. (This has been my usual practice to avoid having a conversation with the typical Manong taxi driver) Finally to my delight, he settled for a quite familiar mid 90’s alternative rock song. As soon as the guitar intro smashed into his rusty sound box, I knew without a doubt that it was the anthem of my generation-Wallflowers’ masterpiece, “One Headlight.” Ironically, the heavy traffic on the busy streets of Taft Avenue worked to my advantage. For the first time, I never complained. I savored every note of that nostalgic song while heavy rains kept on pouring and pouring like there was an impending flood coming. In a split of a second, memories of my youth occupied my mind during this unexpected trip.

The makings of a musician...

I grew up in a semi-conservative home where rock music is taboo. Rock music has always been associated with teenage rebellion, but then again like most teenagers, I too had my rebellious stories to share. Apparently, it all started with the 1964 hit “A Hard Day’s Night.” A song which prevailed the airwaves sixteen (16) years before I was born.

I came to know the Beatles when I was in 1st grade. Thanks to the obscure local radio station that played marathon Beatles’ songs every Sunday afternoon. And so my ears were glued on the radio the entire afternoon, house chores let alone school assignments, had to give way. Looking back I remember my father used to tell me that the Beatles were nothing compared to “the King.” To him, they were just a bunch of copycats with ridiculous hair do’s and silly stage antics. Deliberately or not, I disagreed and said at least they wrote their own songs and have the most number one hits in music history. That, my father had to concede, to my heart’s glee. Even then my fondness to Beatles’ music was not superficial, but more of the substance. The songwriting prowess of Lennon-McCartney got me hooked tremendously up to this time.

Beatles’ music basically opened my eyes and widened my horizon as a budding musician. I acquired my very first Gibson acoustic guitar from a neighbor who was too anxious to dispose it at a very low price. From then on, my enthusiasm for guitar playing became insatiable. I practiced day and night using an almost crumpled chord chart as my only guide. And so for almost one (1) whole week, all I ever did was to play and sing this catchy song entitled, “Magasin.” Who could ever forget these immortal lines, “Nakita kita, sa isang magasin, dilaw ang yong suot at, buhok mo’y grin…” It was at this point that I got to know my newest music heroes, the legendary Pinoy pop icons, the Eraserheads.

The mid 90’s I would say, was the best of times, it was the worst of times to quote Charles Dickens. It was the best of times because life was too simple for us. Worst because we were ordinary teenagers curtailed of our freedom to do what we really want. In those days, after Sunday service, my cousins and I used to sneak around the church hoping to have a touch on the musical instruments used for the praise and worship service. (We are born again Christians by the way.) For us, electric guitars and drums were the “real thing,” and so we need to get hold of it even just for a second. And so while our pastor was busy chatting with his flocks, Jimbo would have his hand on the drums, while John and I would try our luck with the electric guitars. The experience was awesome. Hardly audible, we played Beatles’ songs but as soon as the pastor recognized our worldly chants, our music would have to shift from “It’s been a hard day’s night” to the tune of “This is the day, this is the day that the lord has made…” Oh boy, we really had a good laugh.

In a twist of fate, it so happened that our aunt Lety used to own a music bar but had to close down due to financial problems and so the musical instruments were stacked on the garage. Fortunately, his son kuya Bong (May God bless his soul) had an eye for talents. (Ahem!) He told us to try out those instruments and see if it is still working so we can use it for practice during summer. We immediately jumped to the idea and felt we had just won a hundred million on the lottery.

The musical instruments were old fashioned and could have seen better days. Nonetheless we were so excited to have the instruments set up and ready to rock the neighborhood. For several times, we got electrocuted because of faulty wirings. Still, we are bound to conquer the world as rock stars, who cares about death by electrocution anyway. Slowly but surely, we learned the ropes of setting up a rock band.

Hitting the road and running...

In second year high school we were ready to the hit road as a band so to speak. Doing small gigs primarily intermission numbers in school programs blew our minds to unprecedented proportions. Although our instruments occasionally failed us, yet we managed to play and finish our songs with our heads up high on stage. Most of the time though, we heard negative remarks from our very own teachers. Others however were enthralled because having a rock band on stage was an unusual experience-a rarity. It is as if they see monkeys using tools for the first time. Our repertoire consists of songs from Eraserheads and Rivermaya. Then, we also do acoustic numbers ranging from Siakol’s sentimental song “Bakit ba?” to Britpop Oasis’ classics “Wonderwall” and “Married with children.” Looking back, each and every performance was a gem and worth reminiscing.

By the end of that school year Jimbo and I plotted a mutiny. At point blank, we informed our lead vocalist that we were not improving as a band and that he had to go. He pleaded and promised to do some changes but we stood on our ground. Apparently, the mutineers were convinced that he was the weakest link in the group so he had to vanish at once. Then came Vilfort, our newest member whom we (It was me actually…) pirated from the other side of the fence. Unanimously, we changed the name of our band from the seminal “Pencil Puzers” to a much teeny sounded name-the Butterfingers.

From then on we vowed to perfect our craft. Vilfort and Jimbo started to write songs for the band. John and I on the other hand collaborated on the guitar licks to make the songs livelier and whole. All of us improved in a short span of time. Invitations came one after the other asking us to play for various occasions. But the most memorable though was the one which came from the then popular local radio station-96.3 Campus Radio. Every rock band had this illusion of winning the Battle of the Bands contest and perhaps be discovered and join the mainstream rock. And so without much hesitation, we seized the opportunity and promised to bring home the bacon. Like naughty boy scouts, we hurriedly packed our bags and embarked the m/v Dona Ramona all the way to the city. But there is one thing about this journey which makes it somehow memorable even now as I write this piece. For the duration of the trip, we were entertained by a 1996 hit film entitled, “That Thing You Do.” That wonderful movie basically summarized our own story as a budding rock band and in a way, it also predicted our own fate. Nevertheless, that fateful movie helped boost our morale in preparation for the big event that was about to happen later that day.

The prestigious competition was to be held at the auditorium of Ateneo de Zamboanga, a school known for having the most number of beautiful kolehiyalas in the city. The contest started at exactly 7 in the evening. (Guys help me here, I need the minute details) Upon reaching the backstage, we were shocked. Our jaws dropped finding that other contestants brought their own instruments, guitars, gadgets and all. We, on the other hand came with our hands empty, totally unarmed. All we had were drum sticks and dunlop guitar picks in our pockets. But there was one important thing we had that most contestants failed to bring with them-a heart full of courage and zeal. (Simply,“kapal ng mukha!) As the Chain Rejects (one of the best local rock bands at that time) delivered their heavily distorted rendition of “Pasko na sinta ko,” suddenly, we felt we were running out of breath. Our hands trembled. We were losing faith in no time.

Finally after a couple of extraordinary numbers from the other contestants, it was our turn to hit the spotlight. But as the saying goes, “When it rains, it pours.” After the name Butterfingers was called, hurriedly we proceeded to the stage. The stage was entirely dark, we could not find the cable wires let alone the amplifiers to plug it in. It lasted for about forty minutes or so. The audience kept on shouting nasty remarks at us. There was pandemonium all over the place until a Good Samaritan walked up on stage and volunteered to help us plugged the wires. Soon enough we were ready to play our very own composition-the Grin Dept inspired, “Sana’y laging pasko.”

Vilfort fired the first shot when he strummed his rhythm guitar. His natural tagalog accent instantly caught the attention of the audience. Soon to follow was my witty lead guitar part. John on the other hand played his bass guitar like a pro, but it was Jimbo who delivered the outstanding performance with his heart-pounding drum lines. Unlike the other contestants, this was the first time we played the song live with “real” instruments. The rehearsals were mostly done with acoustic guitars and throw pillows as our imaginary drum set. Our performance that night ended with a bang. We walked down the stage with the crowd honoring us with a standing ovation. We felt like proud gladiators marching in the middle of the hooting throng right after the bloodbath. Indeed, we had just vanquished our enemies. To cut the story short, we were eventually proclaimed as the 1996 Campus Radio’s Battle of the Bands champion. From then on, doors began to open for the four of us.

Mates and all...

In a nutshell, let me introduce the members of the group. Ireneo Suson or Jimbo to his friends was arguably, the popular lad amongst our “brood.” He started banging the drums when he was 13 years old mainly as a church musician. Prior to that, Jimbo was a consistent honor student in school until his passion for rock music took over his scholastic record. Undeniably, this talented and fine-looking man turned rock star had his own share of admirers. Next is Vilfort Arreola, the voice behind the microphone and the soul of the group. Herbie used to be the vocalist of a much experienced local rock band strangely called, Rendevouz. We first met him when we were invited to make an appearance for the “Summer Jam Concert,” an ambitious musical outfit for promising local rock aficionados. We had our first taste of Herbie’s gift as a musician when his group did a splendid performance in that concert. And so the rest is history. John Anthony Suson was the baby of the group. Like his melodic bass lines, John depicted a child-like innocence when it comes to humor. He was indeed our “bright light in the dark night,” so to speak. And of course on lead guitar was the master tactician of the group, Christopher Bonoan or Pepey to his constituents. (That’s me folks!) Lastly, our keyboard sessionista slash roadie was Marc Anthony Corrales or Miko to his mates. Although not a regular member of the group, Miko was eventually christened as the “fifth” Butterfinger for having been with us for the longest time.

Soon enough we were able to penetrate the mainstream Zamboanga. Being the champion of the Battle of the Bands, the host radio station honored us by featuring our group as guest in their late afternoon radio show, “Pinoy Rock.” Media interviews came one after the other. At long last, we now belong to the esoteric circle of respected musicians in the city. We were literally in awe of what was happening. Meanwhile, our homes were flooded with prank calls coming from anonymous callers, mostly from teenage girls and even gays much to our chagrin. Our parents got pestered with these calls for quite some time. At one point, they even warned us that if we keep on entertaining these calls, phone lines would be cut-off. Admittedly, our heads just went full circle. As teenagers, we were in the euphoric level of local popularity.

Towards the end of the year, my favorite aunt Neneng gave me an unexpected birthday present-my very first RJ electric guitar. Later, John and Herbie also managed to buy their own instruments. We were so excited to try out our newly purchased musical weapons. Jimbo however out of sheer desperation informed the group that his mom (who works in Canada as a nurse) promised to provide us with a drum set. In other words, the idea was still under negotiation. Little did we know that said negotiation would determine the fate of the group in the following year. Truth be told, that the Butterfingers at that time really attained a certain height of popularity in the local band scene. Without the benefit of YouTube or social networking sites like we have nowadays, the group conquered the much coveted arena of local stardom. But rough times gradually set in when we reached college.

The years 1996 and 1997 proved to be the most productive yet a challenging year for the group. The airwaves were plagued with songs from the Backstreet Boys, N’Sync and teen sensation Britney Spears to name a few. The rock scene on the other hand were dominated by alternative rock bands such as Dishwalla, Jakob Dylan’s Wallflowers, Silverchair, Collective Soul and the punk rock trio Green Day. On television, teenagers were addicted to channel 23’s “Dawson’s Creek.” Everywhere, within and outside the campus, the soulful voice of Paula Cole seemed to control the radio stations blurting, “I don’t wanna wait for our lives to be over…” It was also the height of the then popular Music television Channel (MTV) with gorgeous Donita Rose on the frontline. The Butterfingers likewise made some minor changes to cope up with the ever changing trend. From lightweight Eraserheads’ pop songs we shifted to grunge music at frenetic speed.

As our hair grew longer our music became loud and heavier. Our new materials were songs from Nirvana, Silverchair and Bush. We also did manage to include our fave Pinoy alternative song from The Youth-“Mukhang Pera.” But like all relationships, personal differences soon surfaced like mushrooms. Being the most egoistical members in the group, Jimbo and I began to clash more often than before. We were cats and dogs in a way. Herbie on the other hand was not comfortable with our present repertoire. He preferred our conventional materials, anything but grunge! His brilliant compositions were also pushed aside in favor of cover songs. Nonetheless, it was a beautiful mess for all of us. To appease the situation though, all we had to do then was locked ourselves inside the room and listen to a Beatles’ 1967 classic “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” over and over until our heads cool down. It was always a soothing and idyllic experience.

As the first semester of that school year came to a close, ABS-CBN Zamboanga invited us to appear for their Saturday noontime show, ”Zambo Jambo.” It was our first live television appearance and ultimately our last. For the record, the Butterfingers had been the seminal rock band to be featured as guest for that show. And so we accepted the invitation. Back in our hometown, supporters and critics anxiously waited for our faces to appear in the boobtube. As expected, we finished our set with flying colors. Our swan song was the emo Pinoy rock song, ”Tampo.” Unfortunately, that was the last time we played together as a “band” (at least in the truest sense of the word) in front of a huge audience.

In the middle of the year (1997), the messiah finally arrived from Canada-Jimbo’s mom. Over lunch, Jimbo was given the option to choose between a brand new motorcycle and a drum set. It was a no brainer actually. Obviously, he opted for the drums more than anything else. I could still clearly remember that very day when I first heard the cymbals crashing from a far. As I approached the door, I saw Jimbo smiling while setting up his newly acquired Ailjan drum set. I was dumbfounded. I could not believe what I saw. Back home, the boys went berserk as soon as the news was passed on to them. Suddenly, we were all in the mood to hit the road once again like never before. Little did we realize that the road we were heading was not the same road we once travelled. Soon enough we realized that indeed all good things have to end. Heart-breaking as it is, we were preparing for our last curtain call.

As our group turned 360 degrees from lightweight pop-rock materials to hard core grunge music, our conviction to explore and improved our original compositions waned. We became monotonous in our gigs. Soon, the group completely transformed itself into a mere cover band. Alas, we preferred to be labeled as Nirvana’s new born descendants rather than to be called simply as the Butterfingers. This preference could be the result of “necessity” when we started to play in bigger venues. Most of our counterparts at that time were also tribute bands representing their own musical influences. We have seen it from the pristine angle, the crowd favored cover songs than original materials. Like any public appearance, playing with inattentive audience can be too frustrating and disheartening to the performers on stage. Apparently, we decided to just simply go with the flow but only to find out later that it was the wrong path. The way I see it, this was the Butterfingers’ biggest blunder. Arguably, it haunts us like a ghost up to this day.

In no time, the Butterfingers were just a cluster of copycats. The disagreements and animosity between the members had become a daily routine. As individual relationship turned sour, our live performances on various occasions appeared half baked if not mediocre. We were ready to explode.

The last curtain call...

The school year ended without a sound not even a hiss. That year, Vilfort and John graduated from high school and were still contemplating what courses to take in college. For high school graduates, going to college is synonymous to freedom. Came summer, I made a sudden decision to go to Cebu to finish college. Admittedly, I was overly insensitive at that time. For no reason at all, I just dropped the bomb right in front of their faces. Of the three, it was Jimbo who suffered the most. He got furious and felt betrayed. He accused me of choosing my Yoko Ono over what’s good for the band. As if pinching in “salt” to an already sour wound, John chose to go my way. Vilfort on the other hand, innocently dropped the third bomb. He was heading to Manila. And so Jimbo found himself alone. Solitude however proved to be a great companion for Jimbo. In his solitariness be found his stint as a disc jockey in a local radio station. Jimbo’s new found career was a relief. At least, we all have something to do, I thought, In truth though it was a lame alibi for the life we all missed.

In that semestral break, the prodigal sons came home to no one’s surprise. Out of sheer desperation the boys tried to regain their strength and popularity as a rock band. While sitting on the sidewalk, we learned that Campus radio Zamboanga had organized a concert in the town gymnasium. The concert was about to start at 7 in the evening on that same day. Without the benefit of a call slip or invitation from the organizer, the boys decided to make an appearance on that show. We were thinking, perhaps this could be an opportunity for us to have a reunion as a band following our last major performance a year ago. On the set, the concert organizers could not recognize who we were. Jimbo grew a beard while the rest of us had long curly hairs. In short, we looked like hippies from the “flower power” generation. After much confusion and explanation, like Apostle Paul, the organizers had finally seen the light. And so we were allowed to play for that show but not without a condition- NO HEAVY METAL SONGS OR SIMILAR TYPE OF MUSIC WILL BE ALLOWED. Unfortunately, the group brushed aside that condition. The audience was somehow surprised to see us back on stage. Some were also shocked and could not recognize us. There was complete silence while we were setting up the instruments. In no time, my signature guitar feedbacks filled the halls of the gymnasium. Jimbo was also in his right element when he tried on the base drum playing Dave Grohl’s remarkable “Scentless apprentice” double-pedal drum lines. Later, John started to play the bass intro of Silverchair’s “Israel son” followed by Vilfort’s powerful vocals. As we were reaching the climax of the song, I noticed one of the organizers approached Jimbo and whispered something. I wondered what it was, I told myself maybe just the usual instructions from the bosses. Surprisingly, Jimbo’s drum beat started to fade gradually and until nada! Right in the middle of the song we were ordered to cease from playing. It was censorship at its best. The group instantly left the stage embarrassed, we felt we were singled out by the organizers. This was the first time we experienced such kind of humiliation. Significantly it was the last time we heard Jimbo slamming his drums-a hint of our band’s fading music.

After that disastrous comeback, we are again destined to face another ordeal. Out of nowhere, Jimbo made an announcement which almost sounded like a nuclear explosion to my ears. He was leaving for Canada. I was literally speechless by his statement. We could not believe that Jimbo would finally make it official. Deep within me though, I respected his decision. Leaving the country to be with his mom whom he had not been with for quite some time was enough to clear my thoughts. His sentiment to be with his mom was a perpetual issue we had to deal with even when we were still young boys. In the end, his decision was an inevitable reality the whole group had to accept.

The long and winding road...

Sadly, that terrible experience marked as the band’s last curtain call. Looking back, I do not regret neither do I intend to forget that chapter in my life when I was once hailed as a Butterfinger. However, if given the chance, I would have chosen a better ending to finish my short discourse. How I hoped to tell you how people clamored to hear us play again that night. How up to this day the memoirs of the Butterfingers still remain in the generation that used to flatter us. It must be given to us that the Butterfingers is one of the most locally successful bands in our time. It is not over rated to say that we were invincible as a group. Thus, I believe it was heart-breaking that it had to end that way. Nevertheless, years have slowly erased the resentment that bellowed my heart. My disappointment had to give in to my mature ways. You will never know that you are on top unless you go down. This was the lesson we had to learn the hard way. In the later years, another realization wholly calmed my feelings: however promising Butterfingers may have been that time, it was not the path intended for us to take. It was a bittersweet kiss to our youth, friendship and our undetermined destinations. As the group reaches its hype, differences were not a far as I have mentioned. Butterfingers in the end might have reclaimed the very friendship that founded it, that we might not be able to look back at this happily together.

Ten years later while perusing legal literature, once in a while I can still hear Jimbo’s drum beat banging in my ears hand in hand with John’s unique bass lines. I still find perfect melody in Vilfort’s voice despite heavily distorted music in contrast with Mark’s low lyric. The gentle rhythm in my fingers is still strumming its way to the strings of my guitar. These moments kept me in touch not only with our music but with the camaraderie we always had. Maskin kosa pa ya pasa, man barkada siyempre kita mga pare! Y ase ta syempre akaba kunel “Israel Son”! Over time, the friendship once tainted with personal differences has ripened into a bond that only we could truly understand. And that they could never get from us, no matter how disappointing we may have ended. The curtain may have closed for us but our music and friendship go on…I was and still is, a proud Butterfinger.

Postscript:

I dedicate this piece to my lifelong buddies namely, Jimbo, Vilfort, John, Marc and to our beloved "kuya" the late Bong Suson. And to all those who were with us at one time or another during this mystical journey...jai guru dev to you all.

WATCH THE BUTTERFINGERS REUNION SONG ON YOUTUBE.

More on the stupidity of HR 1109

2009-06-15T04:11:00.000-07:00

In my recent article entitled “It takes two to Cha-cha: The stupidity of HR 1109,” I must say that I ventured into the realm of the unusual. And why is that? For one, I am elated because I got favorable reviews from conscientious citizens who are too passionate in expressing their disgust against the notorious HR 1109. However, like any other masterpiece, we cannot but avoid dissenting views from the cynics and also from legal minded critics. For this, I am constrained to respond by expounding a little more on my arguments and theories surrounding the constitutional implications of HR 1109. To be clear, the arguments are “anticipatory” in nature because a case has yet to be filed in the Supreme Court to clarify the various interpretations on the pertinent constitutional provisions on amendments and revision. To be sure this is not a futile academic exercise. In fact, by discussing the constitutional aspects of HR 1109, we will in effect expose the stupidity of those Congressmen who voted to adopt this worthless piece of trash.

To begin, I must admit that there is no such thing as a watertight interpretation to the 1987 Constitution, the provision on the amendatory process in particular. More often than not, owing to the fact that most of its provisions are ambiguous, we are inclined to poke holes in every provision of the constitution to suit our current disposition. This is what the proponents have in mind when they ventured to propose amendments to the 1987 Constitution via HR 1109 calling for a unicameral constituent assembly.

Again, in my recent article I echoed initially the position taken by the esteemed Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas of the Ateneo Law School. And to make it more staid and understandable, I expounded and stretched the arguments a little more.

In that article, I took the position that the “three-fourths” vote requirement under Article XVII section 1 pertains to the proposal for amendments or revision made by Congress when acting as a constituent assembly. The Constitution but sets an explicit limitation when it comes to the manner of approving the proposal on constitutional amendments, this is where the three-fourths vote comes into play. This is contrary to the view that the three-fourths vote refers to the manner of convening the constituent assembly. Unlike the present Constitution, a different rule is required under the 1935 Constitution before Congress can act as a constituent assembly. The 1935 Constitution says,”The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of three-fourths of all the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately may propose amendments to this Constitution or call a convention for that purpose.” Under said provision, a congressional resolution passed by both houses calling for a joint session is necessary before Congress can act as a constituent assembly. But this was before of course. As presently worded, the 1987 Constitution is explicit when it enunciates that, “Any amendment to or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: (1) The Congress, upon the vote of three-fourths of all its members…” Believe it or not, the Congress as it now sits is already a constituent assembly.

On personal note, my brother (who by the way is a lawyer and a staunch advocate of the Constitution) corrected me when I said that by virtue of Article XVII Congress automatically converts itself into a constitutional assembly. To him, the House and the Senate is a perpetual constitutional assembly. I shall grant him that because actually there is no conflict with regard to our respective positions. I totally agree with him but I used the automatic conversion theory merely to distinguish constituent functions under Article XVII (Amendments and Revision) from legislative functions under Article VI (The Legislative Department). For non lawyers, these dual functions of Congress can be confusing because by way of a general rule Congress is tasked mainly to enact laws, thus the need for a distinction.

Nonetheless, let us be clear on this matter. It is my position that until and unless Congress decides to act pursuant to Article XVII, the functions of a constituent assembly remains completely dormant. Article XVII is the constitutional provision which activates the functions and powers attached to a constituent assembly. And so, when the House unilaterally adopted HR 1109 seeking to convene Congress as a constituent assembly, that to me is a useless and futile exercise. (At least in the constitutional sense) What may be unconstitutional is the fact that said resolution allows both Houses to vote jointly in the manner of proposing amendments. Here, we will now be talking about the function of Congress when acting as a constituent assembly. As Fr. Bernas opined, “The question that must be asked is not how Congress becomes a constituent assembly, but rather how Congress must function when acting as a constituent assembly.” In other words, when Congress functions as a constituent assembly, must they convene in joint or separate session? In addition, must they vote separately or jointly?

As I have said in my previous article, it would be more consistent with the bicameral structure of Congress that both Houses must convene in a joint session but voting separately. Thus; “In view of all this, I therefore subscribe to the view of Fr. Bernas that to be consistent with the bicameral structure of Congress, the “three-fourths vote of all its members” must be interpreted to mean three-fourths of all members of each house voting separately…As to the question whether the House and the Senate should convene jointly or in separate sessions, I think it is best that both Houses must cross swords with each other face to face. Take note that what is at stake here is not ordinary legislation but amendments to the Constitution. Although the Constitution does not command a joint session in the manner of proposing amendments, neither is there a prohibition for them to do otherwise. In any case Congress certainly has the discretionary power to set its own internal rules as an independent branch of the government”

Admittedly, the separate voting formula is in line with the position taken by Fr. Bernas which to me is the more practical and logical solution to the present controversy.

I am not unaware of the generally valid argument that if we follow the position of Fr. Bernas in the procedure of proposing amendments (separate session and voting separately), in effect we will be reducing the amendatory process into an ordinary legislation. Obviously, the amendatory process is far more delicate and momentous endeavor because we are dealing here with the very source of governmental authority, the Constitution. Logically we can never equate the value of the Constitution with an ordinary legislation. For one, unlike ordinary legislation which requires the only the approval of the President, amendments to the Constitution requires the participation of the electorate for ratification in a plebiscite. Again, the question ultimately boils down to the purposes for having a bicameral legislative body in the 1987 Constitution. Among the traditional arguments for bicameralism is the fact that it allows for a more cautious or careful study of legislation. Thus, as I said before, “two heads are better than one.” Indeed bicameralism means two houses, the House and the Senate, acting independently and occasionally checking each other. Theoretically, the purpose behind all of this is for them to craft quality legislation.

By espousing a joint session but voting separately in the amendatory process, the purpose is ultimately the same, the quality of the proposed amendments to the Constitution. If it works with ordinary legislation, what could be the possible reason for it not to apply to the amendatory process? To my mind there is none. As I said before, a proposal partakes to the nature of a “recommendation.” It is the sovereign people who will have their last say on whether to approve or reject the proposed amendments. Moreover, if we put a premium to ordinary legislation by having separate session and separate voting, the more reason it should apply to proposed amendments because of its significant impact in the lives of our people and to the stability of the nation as a whole.

As I mentioned in my recent article, the theory behind HR 1109 is a result of a distorted interpretation on the amendatory process as envisioned in the 1987 Constitution. I was kind enough to categorize it as an “outrageous” interpretation. On second thought however, I will now call it as an “out of this world” constitutional construction both in essence and in substance. If these recalcitrant Congressmen of ours refuse to heed to the clamor of the street parliament, it is best to arm the public with adequate knowledge so that they may have a solid fulcrum to express their opposition. I just wish that these issues will be settled once and for all by the Supreme Court and let the record reflect for posterity how stupid HR 1109 is. Nuff said for now.

It takes two to Cha-cha:The stupidity of HR 1109

2009-06-08T01:31:00.000-07:00

Last Thursday the headline of the Philippine Daily Inquirer screamed the following lines, “Con-ass sparks outrage.” Who could not be? Unless you are in a deep coma or simply an impervious citizen of this nation, you should be outraged by the blatant actions of the majority of our Congressmen. The public indignation stemmed from House Resolution No. 1109 which seeks to convene Congress into a Constituent assembly and allows both Houses to vote jointly to propose amendments to the 1987 Constitution. For whatever its worth, it seems that the majority of our Congressmen need to glance once in a while to the significant provisions of the 1987 Constitution, the very document they sought to change.

In discussing the nature and function of a constituent assembly, one must first appreciate the relevant provisions dealing with amendments or revision under the 1987Constitution. Article XVII section 1 pertinently says, “Any amendment to or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: (1) The Congress, upon the vote of three-fourths of all its members, (2) A constitutional convention.” Section 2 of the same article however is limited to amendments, thus, “Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be proposed by the people through initiative…” Verily, there are three ways on how to propose amendments or revision to the constitution, viz; (1) Congress sitting as constituent assembly (2) A Constitutional convention and (3) the people by virtue of initiative. Let us focus on the first mode being the purported basis of the iniquitous House Resolution No. 1109.

As explained by the noted constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, a Constituent assembly is nothing more than a body composed of men and women either elected or appointed officially empowered by the people through the Constitution to propose amendments to or revision of the Constitution. The Constitution by virtue of Article XVII section 1 (cited earlier) automatically converts the bicameral Congress into a constitutional assembly the moment it seeks to propose amendments or revision. But let us be clear on this owing to the ambiguity of the constitutional provision on the amendatory process. As I have observed, most opinion writers (same with my fellow bloggers) seemed to construe the “three-fourths vote” requirement as a necessary condition before Congress can act as a constituent assembly. To my mind, the “three-fourths” vote requirement cited above refers to the determination of Congress on whether to approve or reject the proposal for amendments or a revision. Necessarily they cannot do this unless they already sit as a constituent assembly by operation of Article XVII section 1 of the 1987 Constitution. This is what Fr. Bernas meant when he referred to the issue of converting Congress into a constitutional assembly as “superfluous talk.”

Going back, as worded, the 1987 Constitution neither requires an enabling act in the form of legislation nor a resolution before Congress can act or sit as a constituent assembly. But there seems to be no problem if Congress in the exercise of its rule-making powers, decides to pass a resolution in the form of an administrative measure “setting down how each house proposes to proceed in the exercise of the constituent power.” The function of a constituent assembly however, is not to be confused with the role of the electorate in the process of amendments and revision. A constituent assembly merely proposes or formulates amendments or revision, it does not amend or revise the Constitution. In essence, the proposal made by the constituent assembly partakes to the nature of a “recommendation” subject to the approval or ratification by the sovereign people through a plebiscite.

It should be noted that the 1987 Constitution provides for a bicameral legislature composed of two houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate. The records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission show that it was an uphill battle for those who supported a bicameral legislature over a unicameral system. The debates between the opposing sides were both intense and sometimes even comical, but nonetheless extensive with their respective arguments. At the end of the day, the votes were 22-23 in favor of a bicameral system.

The rationale for a bicameral body is obvious as the sun, simply put, “two heads are better than one.” Legislative decisions, whether Congress acting as a constituent assembly or performing a legislative function, require far-reaching deliberations and debate, thus the need for collective wisdom. This is logical because the Senate tends to view transcendental issues from the national perspective while the House of Representatives favor the parochial approach in resolving problems confronting the nation. In other words, there is the built-in system of checks and balances which is the essence of a bicameral system. Clearly then, the framers of the 1987 Constitution deliberately manifest their intention to establish a legislative body with a bicameral structure and obviously, the people overwhelmingly approved their handiwork as the supreme law of the land.

Bicameralism necessarily entails the idea of dual decision. As such, the same applies even when Congress proposes amendments or revision in the exercise of its constituent powers. Since Congress is composed of two Houses, how then can it propose amendments or revision to the Constitution when it sits as a constituent assembly? Basically, when Congress enacts ordinary legislation both Houses have separate deliberations and voting separately. But proposing amendments or revision is not a legislative function as enshrined in Article VI, what we have here is a constituent function pursuant to Article XVII. To reiterate, the Constitution simply says, ““Any amendment to or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: (1) The Congress, upon the vote of three-fourths of all its members…” But again, how can we determine the “three-fourths vote” of all its members when what we have is a bicameral Congress, each with its respective number of members. Should both Houses propose amendments to the Constitution in a joint session? If so, how about the manner of voting? Should they vote separately or not?

It appears however that majority of the Congressmen who sponsored House Resolution No.1109 have a distorted interpretation of Article XVII section 1 of the Constitution. The gist of the resolution clearly excludes the participation of the Senate in the process of proposing amendments. For obvious reason, HR 1109 openly enunciates the “joint voting” formula as the correct interpretation in determining the three-fourths vote requirement. Under this view, the phrase, “three-fourths of all its members” should mean three-fourths of all the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate taken together as one legislative body. To illustrate, let us suppose that at present we have a total of 293 members, 269 of them belong to the House while 24 to the Senate. Following the joint voting formula under HR 1109, three fourths of 293 would be 219. Thus, even assuming all the 24 Senators voted against the proposed amendments still it would not be enough to overturn the decision of the majority in the House. This of course is an outrageous interpretation of the 1987 Constitution. As correctly pointed out by Justice Vicente Mendoza, “Under this view, it does not matter if the three-fourths vote casts in favor of a proposed amendment or revision come from the House nor if all the members of the Senate object.” The joint-voting formula not only distorts the text of the Constitution, but it also destroys the very intent of the framers when it opted to go for a bicameral legislature.

To support this analogy, a perusal of the 1987 Constitution provides for the instances when the two houses must convene together in joint session but vote separately. Thus; (1) When Congress declares the existence of war, (2) When it confirms the president’s nomination of a member of the Senate or of the House to be Vice President in the event of a vacancy in that office, and (3) the canvassing of votes for president and vice-president. Note that in these three instances, like proposing amendments or revision under Article XVII, Congress is performing a non-legislative function.

In view of all this, I therefore subscribe to the view of Fr. Bernas that to be consistent with the bicameral structure of Congress, the “three-fourths vote of all its members” must be interpreted to mean three-fourths of all members of each house voting separately.

As to the question whether the House and the Senate should convene jointly or in separate sessions, I think it is best that both Houses must cross swords with each other face to face. Take note that what is at stake here is not ordinary legislation but amendments to the Constitution. Although the Constitution does not command a joint session in the manner of proposing amendments, neither is there a prohibition for them to do otherwise. In any case Congress certainly has the discretionary power to set its own internal rules as an independent branch of the government.

The notorious House Resolution 1109 is nothing more but an utter display of arrogance by the majority of the members of the House. While admittedly the constitutional provision on the amendatory process is badly worded, the same should not be use as an avenue for personal political motives. I have always maintained (see: Charter Change Revisited article) that if we venture to change our Constitution it has to be done under a less politicized environment. Be that as it may, if the House so decides to push through with the amendatory process by deliberately excluding the Senate, then this will be the proper time to bring the case to the Supreme Court for adjudication.

PBA091qr8p20

Careless Whisper: Sex,Lies,Videos and the Law

2009-06-04T00:56:00.000-07:00

I’m not exactly frantic when the sex video featuring cosmetic surgeon Dr.Hayden Kho and starlet Katrina Halili came out spreading like a wild fire in the Internet. In fact on the very first day when the video came out, a friend even boasted (short of teasing me) that he had already watched the video several times and still could not believe that it was indeed Starstruck survivor Katrina Halili. To me it was just one of those cheap showbiz scandals similar, but not identical, to the Kris Aquino-Joey Marquez affair years ago. (Remember STD?) Well for one, with the emerging trend of cyber technology and the proliferation of techie gadgets, most young couples these days are into sex videos. Society refuses to accept this but this is the naked truth in this time and age. Personally I have nothing against it as long it remains private and a purely consensual act. But more importantly they should be responsible adults always aware of the consequences of their actions. Some couples have their reasons for doing it, some purely out of love, while others simply as an adventure, for whatever reason that too should remain private. Unfortunately for the erstwhile lovers they crossed the line.

Prior to the release of the infamous sex video, a less inflammable video was released popularly known as the “careless whisper” dance video. (Pardon the pun!) At first Katrina denied that it was her who was in that video. The content however showed a woman strip dancing with Hayden to the sensual tune of George Michael’s Careless Whisper. Later she recanted and admitted that it was her and that they were actually rehearsing for an upcoming performance for Celebrity Duets wherein Hayden was one of the celebrity contestants. Honestly, I do not intend to watch any of those infamous videos. I guess watching the news and reading dallies are enough facts and evidence regarding the existence of said videos. No need to belabor this point.

What concerns me though are the legal ramifications amidst this controversy. Are there enough laws to protect women against “perverts of the highest kind"? (Whatever that means, only the morally upright Senator Bong Revilla knows) or what possible crime(s) did Hayden Kho allegedly commit if viewed within purview of the Revised Penal Code or any special laws?

In so far as criminal liability is concerned, our Revised Penal Code (RPC) is too outdated, if not inutile, to cover crimes involving the use of technological gadgets or devises. What we have so far are general crimes or offenses involving acts, which in the language of the law, cause annoyance, irritation, vexation or disturbance to the mind of another person. Article 287 (par. 2) of the RPC for instance deals with the crime of unjust vexation and punishes the offender by arresto menor or a fine ranging from five (5) to two (2) hundred pesos or both. Law textbooks define unjust vexation “as any human conduct which, although not productive of some physical or material harm would, however unjustly annoy or vex an innocent person.” Clearly this crime is too elastic and toothless at best which covers almost any act as long as the element of annoyance is present. There are some who suggested that Article 359 of the RPC is somewhat applicable. Said provision refers to the crime of slander by deed. By definition, slander by deed is a crime against honor by which the offender performs any act which cast dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon another person. Among the essential elements in this crime is that the offender must perform the act in the presence of other person or persons with the intent to humiliate the offended party. Nevertheless taking into account the all-pervasive nature of the Internet, the penalty for this crime may not be commensurate to the degree of degradation and humiliation it has caused to the victims.

The only possible avenue perhaps, is to resort to a special law.

For this reason, a criminal complaint has already been filed against Kho allegedly for violating Republic Act No. 9262 also known as “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.” What is novel under this law is its broad application with regard to the relationship of the parties. Thus Section three (3) (a) of said act pertinently states that, “Violence against women and their children refers to any act or series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had sexual or dating relationship…” Clearly to find application, the relationship of the parties may not necessarily be that of a husband and wife, or founded upon a valid or common law (live-in) marriage. This is evident from the letter and intent of the law when it speaks of “dating relationship.” The law however excludes mere casual acquaintance or ordinary socialization between two individuals in a business or social context. To come under the phrase “dating relationship,” the parties should have at least dated or involved romantically one time or the other, or on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship.

The act of videotaping or filming of an otherwise intimate sexual encounter sans consent of the woman may well be considered as a serious affront to women’s rights. Note that the type of violence punishable under said law is not limited to sexual or physical abuse but psychological as well. Thus the law clearly defines Psychological violence as “acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim such as but not limited to…public ridicule or humiliations…” Under this form of violence, the offender is made to suffer the penalty of prision mayor or imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. Fair enough if you ask me, otherwise Hayden Kho can always invoke the criminal law principle of Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege (There is no crime, when there is no law punishing it) to escape criminal liability.

Another possible legal remedy is to file for a separate or independent civil action for violation of privacy rights under the Civil Code. But the privacy issue here is not the focal point of the controversy, the best you can get out of this legal principle as applied to this particular case is civil liability. Yes, we are not talking here of imprisonment assuming Kho may be found liable in the courts of law for invasion of privacy.

Ironically a law maker even cited the right to privacy as enshrined in the Bill of Rights as the basis for Kho’s probable liability. This is an erroneous interpretation to say the least. The right to privacy as enshrined in the Constitution is a protection against governmental intrusion and not against private individuals. Simply put, assuming Kho violated the privacy of his victims, his liability should come under the Civil Code and not the Constitution since he is a private individual.

The salient provision which deals with privacy rights is Article 26 of the Civil Code which states, “Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons…” This provision obviously recognizes and protects the sacredness of human personality against various forms of violation to privacy rights. With the increasing invasive capability of electronic gadgets or devises nowadays, the right to privacy is said to be the constant victim of unreasonable intrusions in this society. The protection of privacy rights under this provision is not limited to locational or physical privacy it also covers psychological privacy of every person. Thus, the law speaks of, “peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons.”

Essentially, if two consenting adults decided to make a sex video exclusively for their own consumption and for whatever reason, such is covered within their right to privacy. In any case it should be respected because it is protected by law. But while the law protects the privacy of private individuals, the law also imposes reasonable limitations for its exercise. What makes it prohibited under the law for example is if it is made under scandalous circumstances or if the other party did not consent to the act of videotaping or recording. In any case the law certainly recognizes any forms of privacy as long as it is not contrary to law, morals, public policy etc.

In the ultimate analysis, whether criminal or civil liability, consent is an essential element to determine the fate of Hayden Kho. Having said this, the pressing question that comes to mind is: Did Katrina consent to the act, not the act of sexual intercourse, but obviously to the video recording? Note that the operative word here is “consent.” According to news reports and interviews Katrina vehemently denies that she had knowledge whatsoever with Kho’s act of videotaping their sexual encounter much less giving her consent. If this is indeed true, then Hayden Kho is in a difficult position here. Sink or swim, he has to come up with a legal defense which will establish a consensual act and then shift the blame to those who allegedly stole and uploaded the videos in the internet. From what I heard, the legal counsel of Kho opted to put an insanity defense or that he was too high on drugs when he videotaped or recorded the sexual encounter. Sounds like a legal cop-out? Well let’s give Dr.Hayden Kho the presumption of innocence for now, after all even the “pervert of the highest kind” deserves this constitutional presumption.

PS
What about the culprit(s) who allegedly stole the videos from the hard drive and eventually uploaded it in the Internet for public viewing? To be sure, our laws (i.e. The E-Commerce Law) are not sufficient enough when we talk about cyber technology let alone cyber or Internet crimes. The acts of uploading and downloading of videos through the Internet are technical terms or should I say too “teki” for our lawmakers. This to my mind is a proper subject for Legislative investigation in aid of legislation in its purest sense.