Too much to be dealt with by law

The necessity of an anti-political dynasty law cannot be doubted. Political dynasties have monopolized Philippine politics for so long. It is about time that their powers are clipped. Their control over vast public and private resources continues to impede the growth of our society. Their influence over the existing economic and political institutions have led these institution to cater to their interest to the detriment of public welfare.

Political dynasty is embedded in our culture and history. Spaniards institutionalized clan power in traditional Filipino communities by appointing heads or members of big families as gobernadorcillos. The access to colonial authorities of these appointed gobernadorcillos had given them so much influence to build up their own political and social powers. Because of the privileges that their families enjoyed, they became primary patrons for community members.

Instead of introducing a truly formative democracy, the Americans reinforced the holds of political families reigning in the country by using them as dummies to serve their colonial interests. Leaders of these political families became first recipient of American education. In turn, they institutionalized colonialism by furthering American interests in Philippine culture, economy and culture.

Because their powers have not been checked for so long, political clans have successfully embedded themselves in all private and public institutions. Almost all local government units in the country are in the hands of relatives or close allies of local political clans. Meanwhile, the Executive and Legislative branches of the government have become the havens of politicians and bureaucrats who come to power because of these political clans. Even appointments in the civil service, especially in sensitive positions usually cater also to their interest.

            It is proper to describe the prevailing political system as a dysfunctional liberal democracy dominated by dynastico-personalist politicians.

Liberal democracy’s promise of equal access to political power for all citizens is nothing but a mirage.  Liberal democracy should not have been too problematic if the gap between the rich and the poor in the Philippines is not astronomical. Because of this gap, the rich are able to monopolize access to public institutions.  Vast resources secure members of large political clans in unbeatable position comes election times.

Dynastico politicians impede the growth of society in many ways. They use public moneys to promote their family interests. They convert government positions into a family business. They gang up on investors for payoffs. They use the civil service to favor their patrons and deny services to the needy. They bribe election officials and tolerate flawed election system to perpetrate their rule.

The ways dynastico politicians do politics have nothing to do with the common good. Their campaigns do not focus on what they can do for the common good but on what personal connections with them can do to the voters when they come to power. They use money and entertainers to seduce the voters. They employ violence and maintain armed groups to silence opposition. They do everything to keep their clan members in power.     

            More than any anti-dynasty law is the need for changing the system. The question of whether Binay, Poe, Roxas, or Duterte can lead the country better should not delude us. The system and the people have to change.

We are confronting intractable political problems. They are system historical and structural defects. A social revolution is needed to correct them. This is what we need.

Post-BBL war mongering

MILF Central Committee Vice-Charman Ghadzali Jaafar warned of a full-blown war if Congress will pass a watered down version of the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL). The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) wants the BBL enacted into law without any alteration in spite of the plenary power of the Congress to scrutinize all its provisions or even to disapprove the same. Thus, the BBL is about to become another point of contradiction between the Philippine government and the MILF.

            The warning echoed the sentiment of the administration when it told Congress that the alternative to the BBL is war. As if it is threatening its own constituency, the administration predicted that the non-passage of the BBL will mean more bloodshed and casualties, not only to government security forces, but to civilians as well. However, this grim scenario—while probable—is only one of the few possible post-BBL futures. Other post-BBL possibilities may be blur and messy but not as gloomy as the administration is trying to impress upon us.

            The armed conflict in Mindanao is a complex one. Exclusion and poverty provide the context of the Bangsamoro’s claim to self-determination and recognition. Because of this, laws will be insufficient to address the Bangsamoro concerns. Several years are needed before before the problems that give rise to the armed conflict may be finally rooted out. The solidarity and support of the rest of the Filipino nations are indispensable before the people of Mindanao attain a true and lasting peace.

            Assuming that the BBL failed to pass after the congressional votes, then, the government is left with the option of starting a new peace negotiation with the MILF. While the possibility of renewed fighting is very high, it does not mean that a full-scale war will ensue thereby. Anyway, the armed conflict between the government and the MILF did not end at any time before or after the conclusion of the peace agreement. Though there has been a prolonged cessation of hostilities between the government and the MILF, the armed conflict did not cease at all. Until the MILF finally lay down its arms, the threat of armed assault against the duly constituted authorities in Mindanao is always real. The government should not fear the impending threats of renewed fighting. If fighting erupt in the next few days, then, the AFP should deal with it accordingly.

            The BBL is expected to start the process of establishing the necessary political conditions for a long-term peace. Unfortunately, many people perceived it as another threat to peace.

Undoubtedly, change in the region is inevitable with the passage of the BBL. But whether such change will be for the better or for worse is highly uncertain at this point. Recent events tend to show that if ever the BBL would bring peace, it would be a troublesome one.

If one thing is certain at this point, it is that nobody can hurry up peace. Peace comes when it is time. It is time when we are ready to accept the terms and conditions of peace.

Obergefell v. Hodges, the road to perdition?

The most controversial decision of the US Supreme Court after Roe v. Wade, the decision which recognizes the right of a pregnant woman to have an abortion, was laid down two weeks ago. In the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the US Supreme Court declared that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry. The majority opinion held that the prohibition for same-sex marriage is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause guaranteed under Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. The decision decreed that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry, according to the majority opinion penned by Justice Kennedy.

Four justices vigorously dissented to the majority opinion of their other five fellow magistrates. They are unanimous in claiming that the Supreme Court violated the Constitution when it decreed that same-sex marriage is a legal right and must be allowed all over the USA. They pointed out that the issue calls for the enactment of laws by the Legislature and not for an interpretation of the Constitution by the court. Chief Justice John Roberts chided the majority in stating: "If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not Celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it." 

Justice Antolin Scalia, who is known for his staunch Catholic positions in many cases before the US Supreme Court, considered the majority opinion as an insult to democracy. He claimed that the court’s decree implied that his Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. He said that the court had ended the public debates about same-sex marriage in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. What the court did, according to him is a naked judicial claim to legislative — indeed, super-legislative — power, a claim fundamentally at odds with the American system of government. He declared: A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”  In his concluding paragraph, Justice Scalia pointed out that the court is in the road of impotence: "With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them — with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the 'reasoned judgment' of a bare majority of this Court — we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence."

The Equal Protection Clause under Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution was patterned after the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. In spite of this, the Philippine Supreme Court has relied on its earlier rulings to resolve cases brought under the said constitutional guarantee. The prevailing principle is that foreign laws and decisions can be used only if there is no local law or jurisprudence applicable to controversies pending before our courts.

Until the Philippine Supreme Court rule on the matter, there is no telling whether this controversial US decision will make any dent on its wisdom when it rule on the pending case which seeks to invalidate the provision of the Family Code which limits marriage to male and female parties. For now, we can only hope that the court will not be reckless in treading the same path that led the United States of America into the road to perdition.

What does the principle of the separation of Church and State mean?

The 1987 Constitution devotes two important provisions to emphasize the principle of the separation of church and state. First, it categorically declares that the separation of church and state shall be violable. And secondly, it recognizes religious freedom by enunciating the principles that there shall be no law respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof and that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship shall forever be allowed without discrimination or preference.

This principle of the separation of church and state does not prohibits the active participation of religious sects in secular matters which have political complexion. What the Constitution prohibits is the interference of the state to any religion or the active participation of the government to matters involving the exercise of religious freedom. As Filipino citizens, members of religious groups have rights and duties to participate in the governance and take active role in politics as may be consistent to the teaching of their faiths. Their citizenship gives them as much interest in the fate of their country.

In fact the principles of the separation of the Church and the State is becoming blurred when each consider the grave moral crises confronting the society. In the face of the need to articulate the concerns of their members, religious groups have begun acting outside the box by breaking the stereotype that theirs are only concerns pertaining to the private spheres of a believer’s life. The participation of religious groups in public matters dominates the headlines of national and local dailies today.

The advocacies of Archbishop Ramon C. Arguelles highlighted the duty of religious to participate in public matters within the context of the separation of the Church and the State. Others may say that by participating in the protests against mining activities in Lobo, Batangas and the putting up of coal-fired power plant in Batangas City, he is violating the principle of separation of church and state. This notion is misplaced to say the least. This principle is far from proscribing the participation of the church in politics. No constitutional principle may be claimed to be violated unless, of course, the good Archbishop took over the management of a government institution.

On the contrary, the Constitution will be well-served by his insistence on the protection of the environment, the cleansing of the electoral process, the promotion of the right to life, and the dismantling of a corrupt political regime.  Every Filipino citizen has the duty to protect the values underlying the Constitution by advancing all the causes that he is advancing. His motivations in doing so may not be different at all from that of any public official regardless of his or her religious or political conviction.

The Constitution promotes all religions. It protects them all. It cherishes them as it cherishes the political rights of the people. In turn, the different religions must be true to their teachings by actively rebuilding the society according to the tenets of the fundamental law of the land. 

What are the six important issues confronting the 2016 Presidential Election?

Candidates for the 2016 Presidential election are expected to deal with the most important issues confronting us today. Six of these most important issues that they will be facing are listed below in alphabetical order.

Climate change. This is one of the recurring election issues confronting the Philippines since the late 90s. Candidates for national positions seldom pay serious attention to this. As in the past, Presidential candidates will likely offer only general answers to questions related to climate change. Anyway, the major political parties have not drafted specific policies and programs to address this concern.

Economy. Candidates will either pay tribute to or debunk the so-called economic gains of the present administration. Poverty and unemployment statistics will serve as incontrovertible tool against any claim of economic recovery by the LP standard bearer. Amendment of the economic provisions of the Constitution to give way to alien ownership and to attract foreign investors will not be much of an issue considering that it seems that all Presidential aspirants favour the policy shift.

Foreign relations. This is a very emotional issue but not necessarily on top of the agenda of most of the candidates. Most likely, all candidates will favour the present tract of the government in reclaiming the Scarborough Shaol from China.

Graft and corruption. Of course, all eyes will be set on VP Jojo Binay when the issue hit the campaign. All other candidates will find a common cause to pin down Binay on this issue. However, the discussion will likely be far from becoming one-sided. Assertions regarding DAP, PDAF, and irregularities attributed to Aquino allies will be in mainstream also to the prejudice of the administration bet, Mar Roxas.

Health care, education and social services. This seems to be VP Binay’s strongest point and Roxas’ weakest link. It is expected that Binay will drum on this to make it on top of the political debates. Other candidates will join him on the issue but they are not expected to offer different other strategies to address these social policy issues.

Insurgency, peace process, and criminality. Presidential candidates usually gloss questions related to insurgency. However, considering the controversial Mamasapano incident, insurgency will be one of the contested issue in the coming presidential election. The Bangsamoro Basic Law will be asked and discussed with only the administration candidate favouring the same. Unfortunately, the discussion on insurgency will end with the MILF and Abu Sayaff. Most of the candidates will likely avoid issues concerning the CPP-NDF-NPA because of the influence of its most vocal followers in the mainstream media.  Candidates will surely ventilate the present state of the law and order in our country during the campaign. The failure of the DILG to curb the rising incidents of violent crimes, including drug trafficking, kidnapping, robbery and murder will be one of the issues which will be mounted on LP standard bearer, Mar Roxas.