vigilantism and death squads

What should distinguish the homo sapiens from the rest of the animal kingdom is the respect for law and order. Although throughout human history, we have seen the erratic regard for the law, we still stick to the ideal that the nobler side of man is his capacity to comply with the norms and mores that society imposes upon him.

Society has evolved from the cave, to the tribe, to kingdom, to nation-state, to international groupings, and thanks to technology, to the global village. But although technology has developed in exponential proportions, the same cannot be said of our respect for law and order.

The bestial side of man manifests in terrorist acts, economic sabotage, neo-colonialism, and when all hell break loose, man’s ugliest side is seen in wars.

But nothing compares to the death squads that kill criminals summarily in the name of protecting the peace and quite of society. These groups engage in hypocritical discourse that they are needed in a society where the justice system fails. They take the law into their hands, and would want us to call them our defenders.

The death squads and whoever led them are playing gods, hypocrites and arrogant breeds who claim to weed out the scums of the earth. But when they operate beyond the law, who will now take them to account the many they killed who turned-out to be innocent? Or to render justice to victims who were killed simply due to personal spite?

Since 1998, more than 800 victims in Davao City died at the hands of vigilantes who usually ride in a motorcycle in a group of two using the high-powered .45 caliber pistol, then in the presence of witnesses, pump bullets into the victims. The perpetrators walk away from the crime scene as if nothing happened. And the police, true to the joke that they maintain the peace, come minutes after, when there is no more threat but the terrified but muted silence of the on-lookers.

Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, with bravado, exclaimed that you should be afraid to live in Davao City if you are a criminal or a member of a syndicate. He points out to the relative peace in the City. But the Human Rights Watch, an international body, points out that according to statistics provided by the Philippines National Police, the number of annual crime incidents has increased some 219 percent in the last decade, while the city’s population rose only by 29 percent. An increasing number of death squad killings appear to have made crime rates worse in Davao.

In Cebu City, there have been reported killings perpetrated by the vigilantes. The vigilante-style killing has claimed 167 lives already since December 2004. Msgr. Achilles Dakay claimed that the vigilantes appeared well-trained, organized and well-paid. Yet despite the vigilante-style killing, crime rate in Cebu City has not abated.

In Cagayan de Oro City, vigilante-style killings have been reported. Usually, the victims are members of the notorious gang of hoodlums known as Batang Mindanao or simply B.M. These victims have been going in and out the jail and have their bodies tattooed with the initials B.M. Still, the killing is done by motorcycle riding men who use .45 caliber pistol in shooting the suspect.

Equally alarming to the spate of death squad killings is that no vigilante group has even been arrested and hailed to court to account for violating the penal laws of the land. The number of vigilante killing in Davao is now 800 or so, but no one has ever been caught. Mayor Duterte cannot take pride that the criminals live dangerously in that city. Even with the vigilantes, the crime rate there has grown exponentially.

Besides, as a lawyer and as a mayor, he should know that vigilantes violate the laws, and should therefore be arrested, prosecuted, and put to jail. Fact is no vigilante has been arrested. The Davao Death Squad has been associated with him, and if only to erase this stigma, he should rein on the vigilantes. Otherwise, he will forever bear the stigma.

The same is true with Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmena. 167 vigilante-style killing since December 2004 is no joke. It will be good to the honor of the surname he carries if vigilantes will be caught.

Across the country, there has been a marked increase of reported vigilante killings that this practice of exacting justice, if it does at all, is becoming a counter-culture, that threatens to further undermine our justice system.

Every victim who dies in the hands of the vigilantes is one strand that is taken away from the fabric of our society. If this goes unabated, one day, we will realize that there is no more strand that binds us all. When that day comes, God forbid, the law of the jungle will reign instead of the rule of law. People will now take the law in their hands.

That day, we shall have retrogressed in the evolutionary ladder from human to beast, instead of the Darwinian model.

Muzzling the press

AMONG the civil rights, freedom of expression should rank the highest. True, the sovereign people elect their leaders. This is the right of suffrage. But an election without the informed voters is a blind exercise of a right. It results to a non-exercise. It only functions to lend credence to an otherwise discredited government.

After democracy was restored in 1986, that is, after four presidents – Cory Aquino, Fidel Ramos, Erap Estrada, and now Gloria Arroyo – 96 journalists have been martyred by assassins’ bullets. Of the 96, 64 have been killed during the Arroyo administration. Two-thirds of those martyred since EDSA revolution died during the present government.

Killing is definitely the worst form of muzzling the press. Less brutal, but no less effective form of suppressing the press is the legal process. There is really nothing wrong with availing of the legal remedies to redress grievance from media attacks. That is the function of democracy.

But where the legal process is wielded by the powers that be, then you send the strong signal to the press. Chilling still is that along with the legal process you see dead bodies piling up. In this case, the demarcation line between the judicial and extra-judicial remedies to silence the press becomes a blur. You can always suspect that the two processes are used in tandem by the administration, each remedy re-enforcing the efficacy of the other.

No other presidential spouse has filed more libel cases than First Gentleman Mike Arroyo. There is really nothing with this. But the string of cases already filed show how onion-skinned the present occupants of the seat of powers are. That is why, for every unsolved killing of a journalist, you can wonder, “Is the administration condoning the killing?” Wistful thinking it seems but there might be a grain of truth. How can you explain that despite the assassinations linked to General Palparan, he is still a free man?

There is a worse and insidious form of muzzling the press than libel cases. Pending in both houses of congress is the right to reply bill or SB 2150.

Essentially, the bill mandates that the media outlet must give the person attacked a chance to print or broadcast his side on the issue in the same forum.

At first glance, this seems to be a novel idea. Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., who once sought refuge in the press when he was imprisoned during the martial law regime, is the principal author of the bill in the senate. How easily he could forget.

Perhaps, the good senator, despite his brilliance and expertise in constitutional law, missed more than what meets the eye.

The right of freedom of expression occupies a preferred position in the hierarchy of civil liberties. No law can be passed abridging this right. Nor the manner of exercising this right can be curtailed, prescribed, and limited.

The right to reply bill intrudes and prescribes the manner of exercising the right of expression and of the press. The moment a law is enacted directing the media to provide space or airtime for the person involved in a controversy, there is already a prescription on how the media should go about exercising the right.

Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution states:” No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

Mandating the press to give space or airtime to the person involved in an issue may appear laudable and fair. Yet any way you look at it, this a form of abridging or curtailing press freedom. It is a way of telling the press what to broadcast and publish. This is infringement of the constitutional right.

Muzzling the press is suppressing the people from information for an enlightened exercise of their sovereign powers. Violating press freedom has no room in democracy.

Honoring A Champion

Can you imagine life without sports?  Headline news without Manny “Pacman” Pacquiao?  What will remain are the scandalous details of corruption, killings, bank robberies, prostitutions.  All these news are chronicles of human follies and frailties, news that numb the senses instead of lifting the spirits.

When Manny Pacquiao gave boxing lessons to Marco Antonio  Barrera, floored on a rematch Erik Morales, and outclassed Oscar de la Hoya, we shouted in jubilation, not so much in celebration of the triumphs of a boxer, but an affirmation of the Filipino spirit, that yes, We can!

In brief fleeting moments, every time Pacman floors his opponent, there is a national amnesia, a time when we forget all the problems, the scandals and the scams.  Suddenly, we cast aside our divisions and instead clap as one nation.

For all the bad news in the local scene – the recent flood, the proposed bio-ethanol plant in Mambuaya and Bayanga, the snatching of cell phones in broad daylight – there is a reason for jubilation.

Francis Casey Alcantara catapulted in the tennis world when he won the Doubles Boys Junior Division in the recently concluded Australian Open held last January 2009 in Melbourne, Australia.  Champions in this division eventually become tennis greats in the mold of Pete Sampras, Michael Chang, and Roger Federer. 

Still 16 years old,  he  ranks  29^th in the world in 18-under category.  He is already playing against fully-muscled behemoths from other countries. Nino, as he is fondly called, is the first Filipino to bag a champion trophy in a tennis grand slam event.  At the age of 16, he played against the world’s best.  Essaying his tennis skills and mental toughness, the pair of Australians who was eventual runner-up, exclaimed: “Where did this kid learn his tennis?”

The world, Philippines, and Cagayan in particular, when the news was flashed in the internet and in cable television, wondered, where indeed this kid learned his tennis?

Unknown to many, Nino was born, raised, educated, and honed his tennis in Nazareth, this city.  At the early age of five, he had his tennis lessons in Nazareth Lawn Tennis courts.  He played against ball boys, and club players; while his competitors are trained in tennis academies.  Even without intensive training, he displayed a flair for the sports.

 He is a trailblazer in Philippine junior tennis circuit.  At the age of ten, he was the most feared player whenever he played in Manila.  Tennis players in the national capital who were under intensive training program were no match to the wonder kid from Cagayan de Oro.  He lorded over in the national scene. At the age of twelve, he was already champion in Asia in the 12-under category, later 14-under category.  He won in Malaysia, Australia, and other parts of the globe. 

Nino’s road to success has never been easy. He has been a victim of Imperial Manila.  There were several times when officials of the Philippine Tennis Association would inform him of the incoming tournament a day before the schedule to make his participation difficult, ostensibly to favor their own talents.

The tennis campaign outside the country has drained the resources his relatives could chip-in.  Tennis aficionados, notably members of the Nazareth Lawn Tennis Club, and few philanthropists helped in their own way.  Sorely absent was the support from the local officials whose sports they only know is perhaps snake and ladder.

Among politicians, anonymous talents yet do not deserve a penny.  They do not boost the politicians’ popularity.  In their road to success, sports heroes have been orphans.  But wait till they become famous, when suddenly, their success will be claimed by many fathers.

Sports’ heroes and their exploits are shots in the arm in the otherwise lethargic national scene.  They are welcome shots, a balm to massage our national psyche.  They have the effect of energizing the citizens, of lifting their spirits.  For these and more, we owe our salute to them.

The Filipino community in Australia reportedly took leave of absences to watch the championship match, to cheer on their compatriot.  Overnight, Nino was their hero.  As Cagayanons, the least we can do is cheer as he raises his trophy.

To Nino, you made as proud as a nation and particularly as Cagayanons.

Obama, to hope

“To dream perchance to hope:  to hope, perhaps to endure.”

Two years ago, when Barack Obama was still a shadow in the political scene, a friend exclaimed: “Obama will be the next US president”.  The name was unheard of.  But what prompted the research about the name was the curiousity why this friend  exclaimed it as if it were gospel truth.

Obama has been synonymous with hope, and its  audacity every time he  speaks, so the reasearch materials revealed.  But history is replete with hopeful stories which turned-out tragic.  Hitler weaved the Aryan myth. Pol Pot of Cambodia peddled the dream of returning to the pure farming society.  Karl Marx had his utopia.  

Is not dream a stuff of all men, black or white, poor or rich?  To hope, and saying it, seems more of a cliche than a kernel of truth.  So why should  his message propel him to the presidency?  How could  he defeat the star-power of the Clintons?  So the endless musings went.

Obama’s dream may not be in the same genre with Hitler’s nor Pol Pot’s nor Marx.  The three have transformed history with gory footnotes, chronicled lately by CNN’s show “SCREAM BLOODY MURDER”, courtesy of Christiane Amanpour’s incisive journalism.  

But there have been great men.   If  Obama wants to align his dream with that of the transformative virtues of Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Theresa,  then his would be a mere glimmer in the sunny light of the two modern heroes.  Should he be likened to John F. Kennedy with his Camelot or Franklin D. Roosevelt with his New Deal, two men who stirred the imagination of  Americans, and yes, the world?  Then Obama may be a mere promise which may or may not happen.

History is replete of biographies, in which  a hero weaves of dreams, dreams that propel most men to action, to materialize the hope.  Obama may not be like these men, but it does not mean he is a lesser mortal.

The research about Obama, prompted by the friend who exclaimed his name, led to many reading materials.  And then the glare of the political campaign and the attendant video news coverage sprung to every living rooms throughout the world the now byword BARACK OBAMA.  The pathos of Obama’s message is not merely the audacity when he spells the word hope.  Men, several of them, dead or still alive, deliver the message of hope equally powerful as Obama does.  There have been great men who transformed the course of humanity men who pursued their dreams. 

The poignancy of his message may lie  in his manner of speaking, in a cool cadence of words, words that ordinary mortals can indentify with.  When he speaks, he is not like the great orator Cicero, nor your politician who promises the skies and stars.  He speaks with the language the man in the street understands and could identify with.

 Take his victory speech, when he said to this effect, “And to those in the far corners in the globe who are huddled over a transistor radio”. That part of the speech reveals that this Obama is not only an American, but the global man who exploits the internet but who still knows that in the far corners of the globe,  there are unfortunate souls who are not wired to the virtual village but are aware of the events as the community gather over a transitor radio.  This image is played out a thousand, if not million times here in the Philippines.

 True indeed, whilst the members in the American family may have internet accounts,  there are many out there in the remote areas of the planet whose source of information is the transistor radio that runs on a battery as the electric power is a luxury that they get to experience only when they are in the city.

And let his reply to the economic recession rings: “The cliff is steep, and the climb is perilous, but we will surmount.”  Here is a man so candid that the economic problem is indeed not an easy task to solve.  Honesty of heart, transparency of thought, these the man in the street take to heart.

Obama has a clear understanding of human nature.  More, he has a solid grip of the human situation, as an American, as of Kenyan descent, and as resident once in Indonesia.  Coming from a white mother and a black father, he has the rare opportunity of seeing the world in two prisms, and having done so, succeeds in synthesizing a dream that both the blue and red states identify with. His message is color-blind.

But come to think of it, heroes, great men, or  men who evokes hope, these men are primus inter pares, not necessarily of their individual worth but of historical moment that calls for heroism, of hope amid hopelessness. To paraphrase Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel:” Great men are not products of their own creation; they are mere creatures of the historical moment”.  John McCain may not have lost to a superior candidate; with Iraq, the economic woes, and Bush oh so many gaffes,  the situation he was thrust into simply wrote the epitaph of his presidential run.  Obama simply put the last nail in the coffin, but it was Bush’s mediocrity that  dashed the Republican’s hope.

“The cliff is steep and the climb perilous but we will surmount”.  Leadership is not about carrying guns like the cowboy Bush.  The affairs of governance are simply vast that no one mortal could handle them all.   Leadership is about inspiration, of bringing a message of hope, and weaving dreams, visions which ordinary mortals understand, and have affinity with.  In times of peril, the message of hope calm the nerves, and the harbinger of the message, propels men into action.  Obama may be it, the message and its harbinger. 

But history is still the final arbiter.

 

tmpjr70 webblog

revisiting EDSA revolution

The life of the nation does affect one’s life. Twenty two years ago, the Filipinos taught the whole world the ways of democracy which even Mahatma Gandhi did not succeed. The EDSA revolution of 25 February 1986 not only blew the winds of hope for the country but also a new life for so many Filipinos, including mine.

Ferdinand Marcos ruled with seeming impunity from 1965 up to 1986. His excessive greed, together wit his wife and cronies, plundered the treasury, militarized the bureacracy, jailed the opposition, and for the lesser known activists, summary execution. The Marcos years were so dark that Filipinos, resilient as the are, only wished that one day, the light at the end of the tunnel would shine, unknowing that, they would later break open from the dark tunnel themselves.

In August 21, 1983, Ninoy Aquino, the de facto leader of the opposition, came back from his exile in the United States, and braved the warnings and veiled threats of death. Indeed, at the tarmac of the now known as Ninoy Aquino Internal Airport, the Filipino hero of the modern times, met his untimely demise, before the eyes, if not in the hands of the military, that ironically, allegedly was sent to secure him.

But Ninoy’s death saw the birth of spirit of activism that swept across the country. The universities opened their gates so students could transform their ideals into practice as they braved gases, tanks, and worse, summary execution. But what started as a brushfire in the campus turned into intense fire that spread to all levels of society – the poor, the students, the middle class, the church, and even the business elite. Not even the intensified summary executions could douse the searing embers of revolution.

There was no room for apathy amid the call to oust the dictator. In the campus, I saw my friends joining the armed struggle led by the Communist Party of the Philippines. At the early years of their lives, these brilliant students died. Others joined the daily mass protests in the streets, mass movements which were fondly called “parliamentary of the streets”. As for me, I was so skinny I could not possibly carry much more fire an armalite. Besides, I have had in-depth study of communism and marxism and came into a conclusion that the dictatorship of the proletariat is but a mere fiction, for among the members, there is always bound to rise a man of sterling and royal character who will lead, if not dictate the group. As for me, I wrote, and edited the university paper and had my regular opinion column in the local tabloid. The write-ups must have enraged the military that years after, I found out that I was in the order of battle, and that meant, I could have been randomly chosen from among the list, and be, using the lingo of the times, “salvaged” which actually meant being “dispensed with”, or killed without a trace.

Days before February 25, 1986, Gen. Fidel Ramos and then Defense Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile hatched a plan to stage coup which was however discovered before it’s execution. The two and their few men occupied a major military camp and decided to put up a fight to the death. But against the military artillery of Marcos, the group could have been subdued easily, if not for the miracle that later on unfolded.

Cardinal Sin, in a radio station, Radio Veritas, urged his flock to mass around Camp Crame to protect the coup plotters from a certain slaughter as the marines and their tanks were inching their way to quell the military mutiny. Initially, in thousands, then millions, the Filipinos gathered around the military camp to protect , ironically, the coup plotters. Broadcast throughout the world were scenes of people kneeling on the streets and praying the rosary to block the incoming tanks, while others gave flowers to the government soldiers.

A day before, there was uncertainty. It appeared the bloodbath would ensue. Ferdinand Marcos and his ever loyal cousin, Gen. Fabian Ver, then the Chief of Staff, had ordered to use force to retake the camp. February 24, 1986, my friends who were already in the underground movement could not be found anymore. They were preparing for a civil war. In a meeting among student leaders in the school newspaper’s office, those who opted to wage war with the pen had decided to bear arms when the shots in Camp Crame would be fired. When I saw into the eyes of my friends, I saw nothing but a resolved that I have not seen before, a resolve that they would even forget their families who would be against carrying arms. Before we disbanded, my group who were student leaders in the university agreed that should there be bloodbath the following day, we would form a group and join the ensuing civil war.

That night, I was so appeased with myself knowing that my short stint in this universe would be part of worthy cause. But alas, when I woke up very late in the day of February 25, 1986, the Filipinos breathed the fresh air of freedom. The rosaries halted tanks, the roses melted the hearts of the Marcos loyal army; in a word, the unarmed army of nuns, priests, young, old, poor, middle class, and the elite vanquished the hearts of the fully-armed military. The hearts of the military men were subdued with the idea of peace and compassion , and as the saying goes, when the heart is captured, the mind collapses. In a bloodless revolution, the Filipinos made history by ousting a dictator.

That day, I was giving shake hands and high fives to my group. Deep in our hearts, we knew that our pen won over the sword, the idea of freedom triumphed over tyranny.

Months after, in June 1986, I started my serious study of law. My friends pursued their respective careers. The concerns of the country took a backseat. From my pen, for so many years, flowed only legal thesis and briefs.

… A re-examination

Little did we realize that while we have been busy building our respective careers, the politicians have squandered the gains of EDSA revolution.

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, in 2004, was my choice over Fernando Poe, Jr. But when GMA was sworn into office, scams after scams have been hounding her administration. The fertilizer scam in which funds for agricultural programs were diverted for the election campaign , the most expensive Diosdado Macapagal highway, and now the ZTE deal in which a project which is worth $130 millions ballooned to $300 millions due to over-price.

But what is alarming is not the corruption. In democracies throughout the globe, corruption hounds governments, even in the US. But when the fundamental idea of democracy and the rule of law is assaulted, then the administration reeks of authoritarian tendencies. The democracy which EDSA 1986 is under seized. President Arroyo issued Presidential Proclamation granting her emergency powers without concurrence from congress. She issued executive order not allowing government officials to attend senate hearings without the consent of the president, thereby curtailing the powers of the legislative branch and an affront of the people’s right to be informed. And even as the Supreme Court nullified these orders, she flaunted executive power by defying the decisions. The spate of extra-judicial killings of political activists. The latest was when Jun Lozada, the star witness of the ZTE scam, arrived at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport, he was abducted by military personnel who allegedly, in the style of Ninoy’s assassination, were sent to secure the former.

The tentacles of dictatorship, wherever and whenever, they emerge, should be cut and disabled. Any attempt at curtailing freedom must be opposed. We had our lessons in Marcos when due to our initial apathy as a nation, he mangled democracy and strangled us to fear and submission.

Should there be a repeat of EDSA, no one could tell. The original EDSA was not spawned with one idea nor by one group nor by one event. That phenomenon was a confluence of events which not one group nor ideology nor event can claim to be the parent. Let EDSA be an orphan whose moment of victory is claimed by many parents . And another EDSA? Not one can give birth to it. But whatever may be the outcome, there is a need for us to build our dreams alongside the concerns of our country. We have to get involved in the most effective way we can. It took us twenty years to oust a dictator, and regain democracy, it will only take a year to unmake democracy with the acquiescence of the people.

historical movements

Time and again, the debate rages: what determines  movements, historical moments or men?

Two years ago, when Barack  Obama is not known here in the Philippines, a friend of mine told me, after his brief visit in the United States, that the next US president would be Barack Obama.  I asked what party does he belong?  He quipped: Democrat.  In a staccato fashion, I unleashed arguments that Hillary Clinton would be the nominee and would trounce the republican in a general election.  Although as for Hillary ,  there is a perception that she will say anything just to win, her intelligence and experience is a plus for America, and the rest of the world.

Little did I realize now that the prediction of my friend is becoming a reality.  Barack  Obama, save perhaps for the super delegates, will lord it over Hillary.

The US, for the last seven years and more, has been led by a Texan Cowboy who thinks more by his holster than his brain.  George Bush presidency has been marked by incompetence and misplaced priorities, waging wars, then doling-out billions  to war-torn countries while being unable to halt the rising unemployment, and the home mortgages crisis.  All these add-up to the historical moments the Americans are revolting against, and are wanting to rectify, pronto, through the polls.

The confluence of events, that is, the present historical moment, is giving rise to a movement made flesh by Barack Obama, he who represents  vision, and hope.  From 9/11, and onwards,  Bush has created his own historical counterpoint: hope instead of the present dispair, and vision instead of blinded pursuit for nuclear arsenal that does not exist.

The Bush debacle is opening the call for clear vision, for a battlecry that can lead the citizens from the mess the leaders have created.  Between Hillary  and Obama, the latter is the natural counterpoint for Bush.  Hillary may have the experience and the wit, but she is not a fresh alternative.  She is not a break from the present, and the US under her helm will still carry the guilt of the past.  Obama is a fresh face, a visionary who inspires  and the light  upon which the rest pin their hope.

The fund raising is a good indicator.  Obama raises campaign funds from small donors who come in droves; Hillary has big but few donors who are very much part of the status quo.

The historical moments have produced the movement and Obama is riding on its crest.Bush has led the nation to discontent, dissent, if not dispair.  People want a new vision which is a total departure from the status quo.  Obama represents that vision. And when the multitude show support to the  campaign coffers, no obstacle can stop its parade to victory.  Anyone who  stands on the way will just drown and sweep ashore.

Obama is not  the creator but a mere creature of the movement: He happens to best exemplify the dream the multitude have for the country.  JFK  may have endeared to a lot of Americans.  But I wonder what would have become of him if not for the historical moment of his time: the emergence of television.  If not for that medium, his sound bites could not have been heard, and his royale presence could have gone unnoticed by the world without the tv sets.

In 1986, in the Philippines, Cory Aquino, a non-politician, once a mere housewife, was catapulted to highesh office , not necessarily of her own merit, but the historical givens that ignite in the multitude the fire to replace a dictatorship.  Cory, a non-politician, a mere housewife (pardon the modifier mere, but it indeed captured the sentiment of the times), represents something fresh, a break of the past, and the harbinger of a new vision.

JFK.  Cory Aquino. Martin Luther King.  These men lived in a historical moment that  created the movement which catapulted them to prominence.  They were icons of the movements of their times.

Barack Obama maybe a mere creature of the movement that resents the historical moment George Bush has led the Americans into.  But do not obstruct the creature in his march to victory.  He represents the movement that is incessant, unstoppable.  You cannot stop the flow of the surging waves: the oppositors will just be swept ashore.

the fallacy of republicanism

I resolved not to comment at least on print medium on political events anymore. The last time I did way back in 1986 when I was still in college, the university president summoned me and the military listed me in the order of battle . Besides, any political comment will have to involve constitutional issues, and owing to my daily dose of legal briefs, I have enough, so I thought.

But the recent political brouhaha in the Philippines leave me with no recourse but to play political pundit once again, even if only for this issue.Last night, I slept not late in the evening, but early hour of the morning as I was glued to the tv monitor. Flashed in the screen were the faces of our congressmen as they explained, in a nominal voting, their votes to unseat the present Speaker of the House, Jose De Venecia. JDV as he is fondly called, has been speaker for five (5) terms, a record in the legislative branch. He did so by astute political manuevering, patronage, concessions, accomodations, and puppetting for the President. He shielded President Gloria Arroyo from several impeachment attempts. He is the perfect icon of traditional politician.

Lately, however, he fell from grace, and last night, he was finally shut off from the corrigidors of power. His idealist son was the whistle blower of an anomalous transaction of the government with a Chinese company, ZTE, involving an over-price of around US $200,000,000.00. The testimony of his son before the senate traced the anomaly to the spouse of the incumbent president, Mike Arroyo. Exposed to the searching light of media scrutiny, the Arroyo’s ego was bruised, and revenge must be made, and indeed, it was had last night.

Jose de Venecia delivered an extemporaneous, albeit scathing speech, outlining how he helped President Arroyo for almost two decades, and the anomalous transactions that he has personal knowledge, and by reading between the lines, he helped cover-up. Despite the two decades of friendship (or is it alliance?) , like Ceasar being stabbed by Brutus, the flaming arrows of tricks and deceptions, hit him from all angles, and to cap it all, even from the people he once considered friends.But more than the attack on the president, the speech hightlighted the fallacy of republicanism, the same fallacy that I took note when I was still taking up political philosophy.

In a republican state, sovereignty resides and emanates from the people. But the people elect their representatives and leaders to run the state. To check the abuses of the leaders, three branches of government are set up: congress, to enact laws; the president to execute the laws; and the judiciary, to interpret the laws. This is the system of check and balance necessary to keep democracy throbbing, and prevent the consolidation of power in one branch. Once power is concentrated in one branch, the other branches lose their independence, and democracy collapses. Then, it is not the voice of the people that governs, but the voice of the president.

Yet the Congress and the Supreme Court are beholden to the President. The power to appropriate comes from Congress, but the disbursement must come come from the president. During the impeachment proceedings, congressmen had to rally to the president or else the pork barrel, the money for their favorite projects, would not be released by the president. As pointed out by Jose de Venecia, the congressmen have to kneel before the sub-alterns of the president before the budget be released.

When a branch of government depends on the other to finance the projects, you can always expect the consolidation of power in the president. President Arroyo, having been raised in the corridors of power when her father was once the president, knows exactly how to consolidate power.

Last night, President Arroyo and her minions, err puppies, ousted de Venecia, and enthroned another pup, Boy Nograles. I do not like de Venecia, but my blood boils with the wanton display and arrogance of power. President Arroyo’s sons virtually installed Speaker Nograles, and consideing the partonage politics, the latter has to lick the hand of the president. Speaker Nograles has to bow to the dictates of the president or he will soon follow his predecessor, to the exit door. Any pretense then of republican democracy is a sham, a fallacy.

I dread the idea of a president consolidating power. The last time was President Marcos, who, having tested martial law powers, never let go of the throne until he was forcibly evicted by the repository of power – the people. Look what happened during Marcos time: the economy was plundered, civil service militarized, and the people who opposed, killed. Worse, the culture of corruption spread like cancer cells that have metastasized.

There is need to strengthen the fences between the three branches of government. Strong fences make good neighbors. Destroy the fences, you lose republicanism. But strong fences make a good democracy. Allowing the congressman to have pork barrels open them to the bait of the president. Stop the pork barrel, and the president would have no fishing rod with which to strangle the independence of the Congress.

It took me several years to speak in open against Marcos. This time, I cannot let history repeat itself.

Let me be a pundit once more.

jihad in the Philippines?

During my secondary education, our family lived near the military camp. We had a store where customers could drink until late at the night. In that store, many secrets were revealed, and many dreams shared aloud. When soldiers drink, they either talk about their exploits with native lasses or their war adventures.

It was still in the mid-70’s when we had the store. The common tale soldiers loved to recount was how, in a war frenzy, they set the entire village in Sulu ( a province in Mindanao, Philippines) on fire, followed by aerial bombing. When the bombing was over, the infantry would charge, not so much to fight, but to claim the booty and loot of war. Outnumbered and ill-equipped, the muslims, mostly civilians, were charred to death, and the living, especially the women, were raped. To cap the day, they roasted human parts, and the ears were their favourite. They had the burning houses for a bonfire.

The story was retold several times that even in moments of stupor, these soldiers must have told the truth. I had this story confirmed by a veteran who did not drink. But according to the soldiers, they were only avenging the gruesome deaths their comrades met in the hands of muslim fighters.

In the early seventies, most parts of Mindanao were war torn – between the Ilaga and the Barracuda. The Ilaga consisting of Christian militias were as brutal as their muslim counterpart, the Barracudas – they would skin each other to death, literally and figuratively. And in the cycle of violence, it is difficult to point who fired the first shot. Imagine the circle: there is no clear beginning and ending.

Now and then, the muslim-christian animosities spark, and the civilians are mostly the casualties. Just like the circle, it appears to be without end.

There have been many peace talks already. The Moro National Liberation Front led by Nur Misuari entered into a peace pact with the government of the Philippines when ex-President Fidel Ramos signed the agreement. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front of then Hashim Salamat is forging a peace accord. In the past, when the material rewards of the peace pact are depleted, the deeper differences prevail, and the first victim of the peace pact is the agreement itself: it is more observed in its violations.

Peace accord among leaders is most welcome; in fact, any attempt at peace should always be encouraged. But peace pacts without the people in the ground truly understanding each other, of having cultural tolerance, is a piece of document without the spirit of peace. The resolution of the Mindanao muslims and Christian conflict hinges on bridging the cultural divide.

Last weekend, I listened with undivided interest the true story of a retiree who lived his life virtually in Bacolod, Lanao del Norte ( Mindanao, Philippines). He has been living among the muslims. One time, there was this Christian who challenged a physically-handicapped muslim. The latter could not obviously fight. This retiree told the Christian to apologize because humiliating a muslim is like killing him. Death is even better than shame for the muslims. The Christian did not listen. Months after, he was shot. Among Christians, challenging one to a fair fight is not as big an issue as killing. But that is not so for the muslims.

While in college, I was in a classroom of eight students. So we had a round table during classes. Of the eight, there were six muslims, and one of them was so pretty that I could not help but stare at her. Knowing how sensitive and protective muslims are with their women, I apologized to the other muslims in the class. I did not stare at her anymore.

The Christians too have axe to grind, so to speak. One time, a muslim came to me to have three death certificates notarized. The death certificates have glaring similarities: three persons, who died under the care of one doctor in one hospital, and their deaths were registered with the same local civil registrar. Worse, the three had pending criminal cases. The death certificates were used to dismiss the criminal cases of drug pushing, carnapping, and rape. Indeed, there are muslims who have wronged Christians with seeming impunity.

We live in a world under different banners of faith. Often, our religions determine our culture. Our cultural intolerance has killed millions of people, during the Crusades in the dark ages, the Holocaust, the genocide in Darfur, in Kosovo, and many other places. One day, our religious intolerance would lead to our extinction.

There is a need to understand the other cultures so that we can relate to them accordingly. With communication comes understanding. Fortunately, we are living in an era of fast and efficient communication. There is the cell phone, internet, fax, radio, cable tv. If we just reach out, there is no reason why we can’t understand each other, and therefore tolerate the differences.

However, there are people who choose to kill, not necessarily to seek religious or historical justice, but simply to promote their interests. In the town of Malabang, Lanao del Sur, still a part of Muslim Mindanao, it is said that the powers-that-be intentionally cut electric power so the folks will remain unconnected with the outside world. Without cable tv, internet, and other mass media, the people are kept in the dark purposely to keep them ignorant, and therefore, easy to mislead.

The worms thrive best in the dark. Exposed to the shining light of education, the folks would embrace cultural tolerance. The government should cut across Muslim Mindanao with a railway system, road networks, and information infrastructure so those muslims who want to keep their folks in the dark will be exposed. The government must cut-open the isolated areas.

Lest we be charged with being naïve, the groups that resist change for their own vested interest, to them the guns must be aimed. To these groups, the Abu Sayyap, Jemaah Islamiah, and the Osamas belong. For them, the war must be waged.