A new discourse

I stopped writing for a while to reflect on its utility considering the prevailing notion that most people do not read newspapers anymore. While some writers claim that writing is its own reward, I think that nobody really writes just for its own sake. Regardless of kind and quality, writing is always purpose-directed. A writer’s motivation maybe deeply personal as to express hidden thoughts but once he or she committed these thoughts to paper, the writing fulfills a latent purpose: expressing the sentiments to anyone who may come across it.

Writing can become very burdensome for somebody who writes because of the need to comply with academic or professional requirements. Anyway, writing is not supposed to be exciting always. In fact, it cannot be done without any difficulty as even the most experienced writers find it difficult sometimes.

Writing can also become a self-consuming addiction as anyone who writes is always susceptible to give in to the urge of striving for higher standard every time he or she feels confident of the craft. This explains why it is considered by many as an art whose perfection is beyond human conception.

I have written about some political and social issues which appear interconnected with one another. Writing about them for more than once feels not only repetitive but also boring. No wonder then that critics dismiss repetitive articles as partisan propaganda against the establishment or as justifications for an emerging new socio-cultural normal. Be that as it may, the necessity of talking about these issues more often cannot be denied. Headlines should continue to show pressing concerns such as human rights, governance, and political freedom to remind the public of their importance. Discourses on these subjects are believed to be essential to the flourishing of democracy and the promotion of the public good. 

This shows the inevitability of discourse in our day to day existence. Engaging in a discourse is an everyday routine for all of us. In fact, some of us may have earned the reputation of becoming a master of discourse already because of our predilection to engage in discussion or to start one even when it is not necessary.

The term discourse evokes many meanings. The different academic and social constructs that the term receives have resulted to anxiety and confusion. The word received such perplexing connotations that people have become anxious about it.

Surprisingly, dictionaries provide a much simpler meaning for the term. For instance, the Cambridge online dictionary defines discourse as written or spoken discussion while the Oxford dictionary states that it is a formal discussion of a topic in a speech or writing. Meanwhile, Meriam Webster dictionary refers to the term as verbal interchange of ideas.

Thus, we have set the stage for spirited discourses in the coming days. I hope that we can have a meaningful discussion on concerns that matter to us whether as individuals or members of society. At the end of the day, I pray that we will all profit by the exchange of ideas and the display of tolerance and solidarity.

Human Rights matter

There is no dispute that illegal drugs should be stopped by the full force of the law. The law cannot continue to stand still while the future is being ravished by conscienceless drug syndicates. Considering our present situation, a total war on drugs is imperative. This is the only cure to a horrifying disease that has embedded itself deeply in every corner of society today.   

Despite of this, there are some basic principles which should not be disregarded if the Philippines is to remain a constitutional democracy. Among these basic principles are the rule of law and human rights. No constitutional government will have legitimate claim to history unless these two basic premises of democracy are upheld and protected.  

The rule of law enunciates that everyone, especially those entrusted with governmental powers, should abide with the mandate and processes of the law. In general, political and administrative shortcuts are anathema to the regime of the rule of law. It is for these deviations that the law lays down the basic rules governing the exercise of public power and the conduct of official business.

Meanwhile, human rights provide boundaries to the vast powers of the government. The government is too powerful to be left without limits. Human rights are the primary limitations to the vast powers of the government. In theory, the government may do everything it deems proper to promote the public good but in doing so, it cannot tinker with the rights of the people to be left alone, to be treated with dignity, and to participate in public matters affecting their welfare. In practice, officials and other state agents may use their powers to stop all things that maybe hurtful to the public but they cannot do this in oppressive, arbitrary, despotic, and unreasonable manner violative of the rights of the people. 

            With the public pronouncements of incoming administration officials that the war against drugs will be bloody, human rights lie on the precipice. The danger of the law enforcement pillar of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) becoming an executioner of private vengeance in the name of the public good is real. In the process, the police will usurp the legitimate powers of the other pillars of the CJS rendering them inutile and irrelevant.

For this reason, it is imperative that the pillars of democracy—the Church, the military, and the civil society—stand together in the defense of human rights and the rule of law. Human rights should prevail lest we all perish from cynicism and insanity of the time.  

The Relevance of St. Thomas More

St. Thomas More’s Feast Day is celebrated every June 22 in Catholic calendar. The Anglican Church of England, however, celebrates his martyrdom every July 6. St. Thomas More is popular known as the Patron Saint of Lawyers. In 2000, St. John Paul II declared St. Thomas More as the “heavenly Patron of Statesmen and Politicians.”

St. Thomas More was born in 1478. He studied law at Oxford. After his studies, he practiced law and engaged in politics. He was soon elected to the Parliament and got married to Jane Colt in 1505.  Jane Colt died after giving birth to their fourth children. Soon, he married a widow, Alice Middleton.

In 1529, Henry VIII, who earlier appointed to different high positions, vested upon him the title Lord Chancellor. However, he resigned from his position in 1532 as Henry VIII claimed his supremacy over the Pope and persisted in his desire to marry his sister-in-law. In 1534, he was imprisoned, together with his good friend St. John Fisher, at the Tower of London for refusing to swear allegiance to the Kind of England as the Head of the Church of England. After the execution of St. John Fisher, St. Thomas More was tried for treason and sentenced to death. On July 6, 1535, St. Thomas More was brought to the scaffold for his execution. There, he declared in the crowd of spectators his undying faith, “the King’s good servant, but God’s first.”   (See http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=324).

The life of St. Thomas More symbolizes that the moral of law is far higher than any law or decree that public officials can decree. His martyrdom is a testimony to public servant’s fidelity to righteousness in the face of the temptation to conform to the wishes of a superior whose self-proclaimed supremacy put moral coercion to subordinates for them to violate their sense of right and wrong.

In the present dispensation when morally questionable policies and methods are continually being impressed in the public minds, our age is calling for public servants who are ready to stand with their moral and political convictions. Of course, this is not yet the time when martyrs have to walk to the scaffold. Rather, the call is for conscientious citizens to lend their voices to the unheard and invisible so that truth and justice may be heard.

More than ever, we need lawyers whose belief in the rule of law and the primacy of moral law cannot be bought or bargained away with. We need statesmen and politicians who will cling to their mandate to promote the common good and defend the public from abuse and excesses of authority. St. Thomas More lived the code and died with it. It is now our time to profess, “We are the State’s good servants, but God’s first.”

What is there to fear about the declaration of state of lawlessness?

The declaration of state of lawlessness is considered the most benign of the military powers of the President of the Philippines. It is theoretical consequence is simple: because of the state of lawlessness, the President may call upon the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence. The declaration gives the President only the authority to delegate to the armed forces official functions that are properly considered as police matter.

The limitations of the calling-out power have been defined by the Supreme Court in David v. PGM, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006: Under the calling-out power, the President may summon the armed forces to aid him in suppressing lawless violence, invasion, and rebellion. This involves ordinary police action. But every act that goes beyond the President’s calling-out power is considered illegal or ultravires.

In the same case, the Supreme Court said that the calling-out power cannot validate any of the following acts: (a) arrests and seizures without judicial warrants; (b) ban on public assemblies; (c) take-over of news media and agencies and press censorship; and (d) issuance of Presidential Decrees, as they are powers which can be exercised by the President as Commander-in-Chief only where there is a valid declaration of Martial Law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

So technically, there is nothing to fear in the President’s declaration of state of lawlessness. Under the situations contemplated by the Constitution, ordinary citizens have nothing to fear about the declaration.

But of course, everything that the Constitution says about the declaration is theoretical. The efficacy of its scope and limitations depends upon the commitment of the sitting President to abide with the mandate of the Constitution. This is the most important thing about constitutional limitations to the vast powers of the Chief Executive. Can anyone honestly trust the President to honor the constitutional limitations on his powers?

To say that critics dislike the declaration because they do not like the President who made it is gratuitously biased. It is in the Filipino psyche to receive any declaration involving the military with suspicion. Our long history with martial rule and the abuses committed during the time constantly sends chill to most of us whenever news about military’s mandate to explore the city and the countryside with their guns hit the headlines. It may be that we have unresolved collective trauma about people with guns and the power vested upon them to decide whom to kill or allow to live. Or, there is that imagined monster behind the men in uniforms depicted in the propaganda of the extreme left that put us on guard every time massive troop movements are ordered from above.

At times when the culture of impunity is spreading, the fear that the declaration will bolster the reckless to continue their rampage against human rights in the name of peace and order cannot be belittled.  Thus, while the power to call upon the military to suppress lawless elements is not denied the Commander-in-Chief, it should also be that the right to put the exercise of such power under scrutiny be not denied to the people.  

It is good to feel fear once in a while. May the mighty do not stop us from feeling so. Fear makes us human…and keeps us safe sometimes.  

  

Quo vadis, 2017?

Depending on which side of the debates you stand for, the coming year will likely be filled with more enthusiasm or hopelessness compared to the passing one.

The forecasts are ambivalent. Next year will be more exciting for some but gloomy for others. This is the confusing prospect for the country in the coming year. Nobody is certain what shall it look like.

One thing is sure though. Now that Congress is hurrying up the debates on death penalty, courts will be filled with cases involving capital punishment soon. Killings will finally become an open policy. With the President’s promise to have 5 to 6 executions every day, public executions of drug convicts will take over the headlines, pushing reports on extra-judicial killings to the back page of your favorite broadsheets.  

With 6,000 deaths attributed to the anti-drug campaign after only about six months from the time the administration took over, dead bodies are expected to pile up doubly higher than this year’s figures. Killing criminals will then appear more clearly as permissible means of social and political ordering in the Philippines.

Meanwhile, the expected exodus of American and European investors from the Philippines will have negative impact primarily on young and middle aged income earners. Service and commodity exports will also decline because of the continuing friction in the relationship between the Philippines and the United States of America. In addition, investments from US based companies will also lessen because of the incoming Trump administration’s protectionist tendency. Furthermore, the decline in the economies of Middle-East countries will lead to the loss of employment of many Filipino working in these countries.   

It will appear then that the Philippines has no other choice but to continue shunning the United States of America while moving closer to China. President Rodrigo R. Duterte can be expected to lambast US officials more and portray China as a better viable ally. If so, then, the Philippines will have to confront squarely the dilemma of allowing more Chinese intrusions into its territory or articulating its legal claims over the latter.

            Meanwhile, the administration’s pronouncements against graft and corruption have been sending dreadful chills to corrupt employees and officials. Surely, heads will soon roll, figuratively, and literally.

However, it is unlikely that President Rodrigo R. Duterte can eradicate the practice completely. He will have gain but will also suffer defeat in his campaign because of the politicians in his administration. As most of them have been part of the previous administrations, they have embedded their political and business interests deeply in the government bureaucracy. Among them also are members of big political clans whose only interest is to protect their dynastic hold in local and national governments. Time has proved that these politicians are not capable of transcending their narrow interest in favor of greater public interest.

             In spite of these, there are always reasons to keep hoping. Undoubtedly, much of the headaches that we have today are the results of our improvident and reckless choices. It is right then for us to believe that our pain and depression can teach us achieve our dreams. The future may appear bleak from where we stand now but since we are known for the talent of finding places to stand for a better view, we need not despair. There is always hope for us. It is always possible that we will realize the wrong choices that we made and the alternatives needed to correct them.

With hope, anything is possible.