On the Anti-Terrorism Bill

Republic Act 9372, The Human Security Act, which the Anti-Terrorism Bill sought to amend, was also draconian.  Nevertheless, certain judicial safeguards which could deter the commission of abuses, thus ensuring protection for those suspected of acts punished under the law, are secured under the law. For one, the definition of terrorism was less vague under the said law. Also, courts have the only authority in determining whether an organization maybe declared as terrorist and whether the detention of a suspect could last beyond 3 days, or 5 days, as the case maybe, without charges being filed in court. In other words, Republic Act 9372 ensured that nobody could exercise unbridled discretion because the courts are mandated to perform its roles as the keeper of the Constitution and the protector of the rule of law.

Proponents may have been moved by good intention for seeking to amend the Human Security Act. Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of the grant of arbitrary powers to executive agencies under the new law may prove to be worse evil than the one it is intending to cure. Without stringent safeguards, the Anti-Terror Law can stifle some of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. People fear that the Anti-Terror Bill (SB 1083 and HB6875) would do more harm than good.

For instance, the definition of terrorism is unnecessarily broad under the proposed amendments. It implicitly confers discretion to the police or military to impute “intent to cause physical harm” from an exercise of political rights by individuals or organized groups; thereby, reckless officials may make such exercise as a cause for arrests of any critic or dissenter. Consequently, it would be easier for creative state operatives to justify classification of any criticism or act of dissent as acts connected with terrorism. And for this, the aphorism “with great powers comes great abuses” may prove to be true once more.

Moreover, the power of the court, especially in ensuring the right to security of persons, the right against arbitrary detention and the freedom from torture, would be rendered ineffective by the Anti-Terrorism Bill. Under the bill, the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) may order the arrest of any person suspected of acts connected with terrorism, and thus, it allows the ATC to usurp the power to issue a warrant of arrest which the fundamental law entrusted only to the courts under Section 2, Article 3, of the Constitution. Persons may also be arrested on account of “mere suspicion” by reckless enforcers who do not know the distinction between probable cause and suspicion. Lastly, the bill allows the detention of suspects 14 days or longer without charges in court. Imagine the danger to anyone innocent but suspected of the heinous crime of terrorism and the fear and anxiety that his family and friends have to bear during the prolonged detention outside the court’s authority.

These are my primary concerns for saying NO to the bill. I would not indulge in the politics of the day by saying that this measure along with other reported abuses are manifestations of an authoritarian regime. People are better judges on this matter. As a citizen, however, my fear is on the unintended consequences of such an arbitrary exercise of State’s authority. The fact that some government officials fail to inspire credibility in the promotion of the rule of law confounds my worries.

I only hope that the people, especially the young, will continue to strengthen the fiber of our society and work for the strengthening of our democratic institutions.

May we never tire in asking our officials to recognize our right to be taken seriously.

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. 

To the Divergents of our time, the best of 2016:

Dear friends:

I have this strange dream a few days ago.

I appeared very old in this dream. I was in a place near a cemetery talking to certain people about their concerns. Of course I was not dead yet and so were the people whom I was talking to. After a while, an old acquaintance fetched me telling that some other people needed to consult with me. So I followed him in a secluded place to see the supposed group. I was shocked because he brought me instead to a group of thugs who appeared too eager to meet me.

It did not take long before they began to beat and push me around. There was no doubt that somebody hired them to teach me some lessons. But it seemed that I did not get old without acquiring a splendid skill of negotiating my way out of trouble. Eventually, I was able to convince them to stop venting their rage on me. I persuaded them to ask themselves, “What could be gained from killing an old man who could no longer tie his shoe lace?” They realized that my death would mean that no other son of a gun would pay to have me maimed and thus, they stopped. Fortune must have been smiling at me because in spite of my age, I was able to cheat death.   

And they allowed me to continue trekking towards somewhere. My feet brought me in the suburb where a gun fight between two gangs are taking place. I then realized that I have been used to find myself in the wrong place at the wrong time. I appeared too old to worry about anything. But then, I wondered why has the world gone so cruel? Where are the dreamers who promised to build a better future? Can an old man like me do anything to set things right? It was then that I began weeping, thinking that I could do nothing but to go home to my wife. 

Strange, but this dream is more vivid than the others that I have in the past.

It left me asking myself whether in my old age I’ll still be doing those things that have pre-occupied me for the past several years.  

Not that I am growing tired of advancing the causes of the poor. Rather, I am curious whether it is still possible for me to change the track that I am taking. With my age, however, I am starting to believe that there is a limit to what one can achieve and that such limit is defined by the choices he makes when he is young.

My wife once told me that one of the special attributes that I have is my capacity of expending (exhausting, may be the better term) my time and energy to help others with their concerns. She marvels at this but at the same time quips that while I am investing so much of myself for others, my greatest achievement as a teacher may not at all be forthcoming. She hinted that it is the same in all organizations that I have put up—people would come and go, but nobody would find courage to return and take up the responsibility of continuing the works that I am doing. She fears that in the end, I’ll be alone to finish the fight. In spite of this, she does not discourage me; she tells me to go on as long as I find happiness in the causes that I am advancing. As always, she is my most loyal fan. 

Well, the point is not for anyone to come back or take away the responsibility from somebody else’s shoulder. It is about committing oneself to pay forward the good things that he received from others. Unless we all learn to do this, the world will always be the same: cruel, selfish and unfair.

How I wish to live for at least twenty years more so that I can meet you in the prime of your careers. Things will be different then, I hope. How I wish that we will share a gentle future, a place where old people like me can pass unharmed.  How I wish that we can share a future full of happy people, of dreamers who make a difference in the world, of advocates who reconcile differences, and of former students who are true to their promises. 

Now that you’re ready to take further steps toward your dreams, pause not to doubt what you can do. Draft exciting new chapters to your story. You earned the skills to sketch good lines, so do not falter—scribble the most beautiful lines ever.

Cross the crooked lines in your path. Keep dreaming. Paint the skies with splendid colors. Walk on! Don’t quit! Advance!

Never fear hard work. Never hope for an easy but meaningless existence.

You are trained to face the most difficult challenges. Prove your worth by confronting your greatest foe. Resist the temptation to be complacent. Work hard, but always celebrate your achievements no matter how trivial they may appear in the eyes of others.

Commit yourself to help people that you’re going to meet in your way to success. This is the highest expression of gratitude that you can show in return for the good things done to you by others.  

At the end of the day—when we both reached the future—we shall see if bad dreams can be made beautiful by a meaningful past.

Come what may, I hope that we can indulge in the good memories that we will soon create as we search for the meaning of our existence.

Stay the course! Claim the future!

Live long and prosper!!!

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.

Batch 2015, to infinity and beyond

Twenty-years ago, I came across with a book written in 1972 by Professor Juan F. Rivera of the FEU Institute of Law entitled, ‘The Great Power at the Bar and Bench.’ It is a collection of writings and speeches of great men and women of the legal profession here and abroad. Presenting his book to the readers, Professor Rivera quoted the parable written by the then Chief Justice Cayetano Arellano for the tercentenary of the University of Sto. Tomas. The parable run as follows:

A rough diamond lay on the beach among other stones of the ordinary kind. A boy gathered several of them to play with, and with them he took home the precious stone, though unaware of its value. His father, who was watching him play, saw it and said: ‘Give me that pebble.’ The boy gave it to him, laughing, because he thought: ‘What is papa going to do with that stone?’

The father took the diamond and cut it, giving it the proper angles and facets, and the polished stone sparked magnificently. ‘Look,’ he said to the boy, ‘here is the stone which you gave me.’ The boy, seeing with astonishment the beauty of the sparkling gem, exclaimed: ‘How did you do it, dear papa?’

The father replied: ‘I know the hidden beauty of the rough diamond and have simply relieved it of the coarser exterior, and this is the reason why it now shines in its natural splendor.’

The parable may sound very familiar to you. Somebody may have related it to you before. It might have been adopted or rewritten in somebody else’s works.  

Many of you may find that the cutting and thrashing that your teachers did to you in those four agonizing years inside the classroom are somehow akin to the process that the boy’s father put into the unpolished stone to turn it into a sparkling gem. Some of you may also feel content in the realization that finally, you have discovered the logic of the harshness of student life.

Assuming that we cater to such a realization, it may be fruitful to inquire whether you are ready to ask yourself if, after the cutting and thrashing, and after you have been burnt and bended, you become a polished gem or a broken glass.

What shape have you become after those four years?

I always believe that life is both a process and a journey. Life is a process of being shaped and turned into something better and greater than before. It is a process of becoming the man and woman you are conceived to become. It is a process of unravelling whatever it is that makes you different from others.

Life is a journey to an end far beyond the present. It is a journey towards the fullness of your humanity and spirituality. It is a journey to a place where you are expected to experience life’s greatest adventures—birth, infancy, adolescent, marriage, childbearing and rearing, adulthood, and old age. It is a journey not only in the physical realm but also in the recesses of the mind because living a full life means tearing down the wall of mediocrity and self-centeredness. In truth, those cutting and thrashing should have no end but the shape and substance required for a successful journey to the fullness of life.     

     

People say that the teacher’s work is done when his or her students received their diplomas. I say that it is not only the work that is done, but the headaches as well. You may refuse to believe it, but you might be the worst of your teacher’s headaches.

Teaching is both professional and personal to teachers. Their sadness is real. Their joy is real. Their anger is real. Their laughter is real. Their frustration, their exasperation, their vexation, their admiration—all of these are real to all of your teachers.

Of course, even if you chose not to say it, the other side of these are also real. Your fear was real. Your anger was real. Your laughter was real. Your tears, your anxieties, your laziness, your ineptness, your timidity, your jealousy, your triumphant accomplishments, your failed expectations, your sleepless nights, your wounded feelings, your social humiliations, your moral shocks, even your unusual tenacity to appear calm and innocent in the midst of classroom terrorism and mental torture—all of these were real too. You did not just imagine them.

By this time, I believe that most of you have ideas already on what you have gained in your four years study in College. The diploma aside, you gained something good out of your struggle to get here. I believe that whatever it is that you gained, you will have it for the rest of your life. I just hope that you will profit much, if not from it, then at least, from the experience of achieving it.   

The future will not be the same for all of you. Some will go to law school while others will have to find real paying jobs. Of course, these tracks need not be mutually exclusive. You may choose to work and study at the same time. The choice is yours. What matters is that you make your choice meaningful regardless of the odds in risking it.  

Interestingly, how will your future be crafted will not also be the same. People experience things differently. People decide differently even on matters which appear the same before all of them. Because of this, you have to remember that your future depends not solely on your decision alone, but also, partly on the choices that others make. Consider then, that many things may not be the way you want them to be. Consider then, that failure and success are always temporary. Consider then, that what carries a man or a woman in the worst of situations are not the people around him or her but the virtues and strength of character cultivated while one treks both the conventional and unconventional paths. Consider then, that it is always better to be happy and optimistic than to sulk in grief and frustration.

Finally, consider then, that while it is sometimes justifiable not to consult your love ones and friends before you make a critical decision, it is of highest importance that you ask God whether yours is in accordance with His will.  

The world is too big to conquer. Nobody can move it even with the biggest lever and the highest place to stand on. Humans are limited by time and space. You can only aspire as much, and only go as far—your ability and talents determine the heights and distance that you can achieve.

Develop then your intellectual and physical capabilities so that you can move forward even if the world seems to standstill. Dream, and believe in the power of your dreams—and believe that your dreams can give you the power to make them come true.

Finally, I wish you well on your graduation. With pride in your heart, walk gracefully well on the stage and welcome the cheers and applause of those who love you. Remember that whatever honor you bestowed upon your family name, it is meaningless without the love and support of the people who never let you down. Congratulate them for me. Convey to them my gratitude in allowing you to pass by and enrich my own journey through life.

Advance, do not quit!

Live long and prosper!

Godspeed!

The Fallen 44, Heroes All!

The fate of the forty-four (44) members of the Special Action Force (SAF) is beyond description. The combined MILF-BIFF forces showed no mercy in picking up the lives of the beleaguered young officers. Man’s inhumanity to man is at its worst when the strongest feel that they can get away with murder like savage beasts. Out-numbered and rendered hors de combat, the SAF 44 stood their ground waiting for the bullets that would terminate their lives. This carnage will be remembered as one of the saddest moments in Philippine history.

Even when the whole country is mourning, people are asking who should be held responsible for the death of SAF 44. The cries for justice are deafening but cut short by the declaration of President BS Aquino III that his administration will push through with the Bangsamoro Basic Law despite of the incident.

Who are accountable for the death of SAF 44?

The Commander-in-Chief did not fail to mention that those who died were out to serve arrest warrants to suspected terrorists implying that they were there to do their job. He recalled how ferocious, how devious, and how evil these terrorists are. He recounted the deaths and injuries which occasioned their past terrorist acts. He justified the operation as necessary police duty and implied that the death of SAF 44 while doing the task is tragic but not unexpected.

To imply that they died because that is the price of their loyalty to duty is utterly uncalled for. Sure, they were in harm’s way because serving warrant of arrest entails the risk of bodily injuries and even death. There is no argument on that. Even a street sweeper is exposed to the same risk every time he or she attended to her duty.

However, the operation could have been less costly and deadly if the commanders and superiors who directed it were prudent and competent. Had it not been for the recklessness of these superiors, the job could have been carried out with less casualties even if the operation is a failure.

None of the superiors who planned the operation dared to go where the fallen SAF 44 treaded. The fallen SAF 44 and the wounded hundreds were left behind the lines—by no less than their superiors and the persons upon whose names the honors would be bestowed had the operation turned out successful. Indeed, in war or in peace time, the young ones and the lower in ranks are always chosen to give the ultimate sacrifice so that those who come only for the good news can harvest the glory and honor of their fall.

The political complexion of imputing responsibility to the fighters and officials of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) is undeniable. Be that as it may, their culpability to the carnage can never be excused by any cause. After all, they slaughtered their victim with mindless display of inhumanity and impunity.

Critics will understandably claim the rhetoric, ‘there cannot be peace without justice.’ Notably, President BS Aquino III never mentioned the word "justice" in his speech. Neither did he allude to the ideas of accountability and rule of law. He is expected to neglect all of these because he wants to go down in history as a Commander-in-Chief who refused to go to war—even at the expense of the society, and of peace itself.

What many don't understand is that in the middle of an armed conflict, the ideals of peace and justice lie on the opposite plane. Moving away from the armed conflict requires accepting compromises and extending concessions between the contending parties—at times, peace would come at the expense of justice as immunity and amnesty usually served as motivations for political leaders and military commanders to sign the peace pact. On the other hand, pressing for justice in the middle of an armed conflict would demand enforcing accountability against erring political leaders or military commanders even if it would entail more bloodshed and deaths for the parties. Such is the reality of the armed conflict.

The tragedy of the SAF 44 shows the obvious: many, if not all, of the fighters of the MILF are not ready for peace. While the leaders of the MILF continue to give their commitment to seek peace in the region, some of their fighters continue to run havoc in the belief that they are entitled to establish a kingdom solely for themselves. The ruthless rage vested upon the fallen SAF 44 confirms this.

Ergo, we are constrained to construct a new proposition for peace: Peace will only be possible if we are ready to enforce obedience against those who can never be ready to accept the terms of peace.

The claim for justice rings louder than the bell of peace today. Let justice be done though heaven should fall. Fiat justitia ruat caelum!