 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Wishy-Washy Presidency By Antonio C. Abaya Written May 07, 2006 For the Standard Today, May 09 issue For the third time in as many recent decisions, the Supreme Court has rendered judgment in a manner that, in my opinion, has characterized its collective wisdom as �cautious but liberal.� Or should I have said �liberal but cautious.� Voting 11-3, the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional the power of President Arroyo � or any other president in the future, presumably � to declare a state of emergency and to call on the Armed Forces of the Philippines (what about the Philippine National Police?) to suppress lawless violence, under Proclamation 1017. At the same time, however, the Court ruled as unconstitutional a clause in PP 1017 giving President Arroyo the authority to issue decrees. Under this constitutional hair-splitting, which seems to be the trademark of the Panganiban Court, PP 1017 did not give the President or her lieutenants authority to carry out warrantless arrests, to break-up street rallies, to raid the offices of the Daily Tribune, to impose prior restraint on media, or to take over privately-owned utilities or businesses affected with the public interest, without prior legislation. Said the Court: �The warrantless arrests of Randolf David and Ronald Llamas, the dispersal and warrantless arrest of KMU and Naflu-KMU members during the rally, in the absence of proof that (they) were committing acts constituting lawless violence�the imposition of standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press, as well as the warrantless search of Tribune offices and the whimsical seizure of its articles for publication and other materials, are declared unconstitutional.� So, what can a Philippine President do in a state of national emergency, other than to declare that we are in a state of national emergency? She can call on the AFP � as well as the PNP, presumably � �to suppress lawless violence.� But, according to the Supreme Court, they may not break-up rallies, including rallies for which the organizers have not secured any permit. And the police may not make �warrantless arrests.� I had thought all along that even private citizens are empowered to make citizen�s arrests, which by their very nature are �warrantless.� Now, it seems that not even the police are empowered to make those �warrantless arrests.� What about the 300 �farmers and fishermen� kuno � but more likely NPA cadres � who descended on Quezon City in July 2005 and occupied and ransacked the offices of the Department of Agriculture for four hours, vandalizing office furniture and smashing glass doors and windows? Surely this qualified as �lawless violence�? But neither the police nor the military bothered to come to evict them and make arrests. (See my article Maoist Sneak Preview?, July 17, 2005). And if they had come and made arrests, would we have heard an end to accusations from the usual suspects that the human rights of the vandals had been violated? If this were Malaysia or Singapore or Indonesia, (or Vietnam or China), those 300 �farmers and fishermen� would still be rotting in jail up to now, human rights or no human rights. Don�t get me wrong. I wrote in a previous column that arresting Crispin Beltran on the basis of a 25-year old warrant was a mistake, and that occupying the offices of the Daily Tribune was also a mistake. Not because they were unconstitutional acts, but because they were stupid acts. Not serving a warrant for 25 years, then serving it all of sudden, in an insurrectionary situation, shows a government running out of ideas on how to confront its self-declared enemies. Occupying the offices of a small critical newspaper that has few readers, but allowing other, bigger but equally critical, newspapers to continue publishing unmolested, showed a bully that is afraid to pick a fight with its bigger critics. My point is that Philippine society is inherently anarchic, the confused and dysfunctional progeny of American-style liberalism and good old-fashioned Malay laxity and permissiveness. Many concerned Filipinos, and not a few foreign observers, have commented that what the Philippines needs is a benevolent and scrupulously honest authoritarian leader, someone in the mold of Lee Kwan Yew. But the possibility of that benevolent and scrupulously honest authoritarian leader (defined as a leader who uses the full authority of the law) emerging from the shambles of Philippine society is nil. The extremely high cost of running for public office makes all leading pretenders to the throne compromised ab initio by their necessary connections to campaign contributors and political patrons who expect to be paid back, and are in fact paid back, in kind once the office is won. A Filipino Lee Kwan Yew would not be allowed by Philippine political culture to take decisive and draconian measures to address any serious problem. It is impossible to please all contending groups, and those who lose out will take their discontent to guns-for-hire in media and impute all kinds of dishonest motives to his or her decisions., with little or no proof to substantiate the imputation. And because a Filipino Lew Kwan Yew would be anti-communist, he or she would be pilloried by Philippine media for being an ante-deluvian cold-warrior stuck in the 1950s, even as a 1960s communist insurgency is allowed to sputter on and both its above-ground and underground champions are turned into celebrities by the complicit media. It does not help that the incumbent president is vastly unpopular and is regarded by a wide segment of the population, especially the middle class, as dishonest, manipulative and scheming to stay in power beyond 2010. She makes the proto-Solomonic wisdom of the Supreme Court at least palatable to liberal sensibilities. The Supreme Court, like Philippine media, is but a mirror of Philippine society. It theoretically recognizes the need for a strong and decisive presidency, but is held back by a political culture that is too jealous of its American-style liberalism and too immobilized by its laid-back Malay permissiveness, to entrust anyone now alive with the necessary single-mindedness to successfully grapple with our many problems. Under the circumstances, all that we can expect from any present or future leader would be a wishy-washy presidency. ***** Reactions to [email protected]. Other articles since 2002 in www.tapatt.org. Current articles also in tonyabaya.multiply.com. . OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Wishy-Washy Presidency� Ang sa akin, makulit na kung makulit, she should answer issues that are against her in the legal forum. That is the impeachment process. This country will remain divided no matter what good things she intends to do. Mapapagod lang sya. Just answer. Plain and simple. Mike Delgado, [email protected] May 09, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Mr. Abaya: How about the "warrantless arrest" and the indefinite "detention" of fall guy Norberto Gonzalez for well over a month by the Senate, depriving him of his "liberty" without "due process of law"? Is the Senate (and Congress for that matter) exempt from complying with the mandates of the Bill of Rights? Is Congress exempt from the command: "The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected," among which is the valued privilege against self-incrimination or "testimonial compulsion"--"a protection of the innocent though a shelter for the guilty"? Cabinet Secretary Norberto B. Gonzalez is an Executive Officer over whom the President "shall have control of," or the "Executive Power of Control" (Sec. 17, Art. VII). It is a Power akin to the "Power of Command" as "Commander-in-Chief" (Sec. 18, Art. VII). The verb "control," which means "to have the power of commanding; the power of restraining," is synonymous with the verb "command"--"to have authority or control over, to have at one's disposal." Thus, Secs. 17 and 18, both of which fall under "The Executive Power" in Article VII, authorize the President, as defined, to "order," "direct" or "restrain" acts, among others, of officers in all "executive departments, bureaus, and offices" and members of "all armed forces." Are these not the same awesome Executive Powers Gloria relied on to "legitimize" her issuance of EO 464? Why were these Powers of the Executive never invoked nor discussed? Incidentally, the U.S. President does not possess the "Power of Control," claiming the exercise of "control" over executive officers to be merely part of a nebulous (and often controversial) "Executive Privilege." This is a "privilege" claimed to be incident to the "separation of powers" the Sovereign dispersed among the three co-ordinate co-equals, the Legislative, the Executive, the Judiciary, wary always of "concentrated power," distrustful even of power itself (as in "lust for") delegated at any level. If the Court views either House of Congress or its respective committees as having the authority to summon and compel the appearance of members of the Executive Cabinet during an inquiry "in aid of legislation," then, the 1987 Constitution may be regarded as "quasi-parliamentary," since the Executive is rendered inutile, impotent by the all-embracing extent of the Legislative Power which allows the Legislative to needlessly encroach upon the Executive, a branch deemed coordinate and co-equal under a Presidential form of government. In fact, this is basically what distinguishes a Presidential from a Parliamentary form of government--the Parliamentary Cabinet is responsible directly to a majority of Parliament. In any case, please access at FindLaw the WATKINS v. UNITED STATES, 354 U.S. 178 (1957), case regarding congressional "attainder" and "contempt." (See also GROPPI v. LESLIE, 404 U.S. 496, 1972). Thank you, and I always look forward to reading your columns. Domingo T. Arong, [email protected] May 09, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, The Supreme Court's decision is a great contradiction and a joke. Any authority cannot restore peaceful demonstrations and put on check evil intentions that will wreck the country, if the same hands that enforce authority are tied.. This is a classic example of the "judicial wisdom" of the Supreme Court of stupidity. Dr. Nestor P. Baylan, [email protected] New York City, May 09, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Mr. Abaya, Thank you sa email. Count me in as one of the Pinoys na nagmamalasakit sa ating inang bayan. I will surely pass on your website address to all my friends. Salamat. Mabuhay po tayong lahat. Hardy, [email protected] Canada, May 10, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww But still today is better than in the time of Macoy when the High Court simply said amen. Ross Tipon, [email protected] Baguio City, May 10, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, Is it any wonder why Lee Kwan Yew keeps the Philippines as his punching -bag every time he wants to paint a grim scenario for Singapore? In his recent tirades against the opposition, he told them he cannot permit them to badmouth the administration and go scot-free, just like in the Philippines and Thailand. The tough talking Lee, even taunted the media and the foreign press, that they cannot intimidate him. Wow !, I hope GMA can do that too... Lee Kwan Yew is sure hated here by the liberals and the Leftists and the trapos. But for every Filipino who has dreams of transforming the Philippines and giving the vast majority of the Masang Tanga, a better quality of life, a Filipino Lee Kwan Yew would be the miracle in our lifetime. Do you think it will ever happen ? Auggie Surtida, [email protected] Tigbauan, Iloilo, May 10, 2006 MY REPLY. A long shot, but it can. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww "The Supreme Court, like Philippine media, is but a mirror of Philippine society. It theoretically recognizes the need for a strong and decisive presidency, but is held back by a political culture that is too jealous of its American-style liberalism and too immobilized by its laid-back Malay permissiveness, to entrust anyone now alive with the necessary single-mindedness to successfully grapple with our many problems." (Tony Abaya's newsletter today). Dear Tony: There is nothing wrong for adopting American-style liberalism in the Philippines. What is wrong is our tampering and re-inventing the wheels of the American Justice system that is supposed to self-restrain abuses by power-holders of government when we copied their basic Bill of Rights. I believe that the blame for the "immobilized" Bill of Rights of the People "by its laid-back Malay permissiveness" should be "laid" on the "Malay politicians" that have been keeping the Philippine justice system as a government monopoly under their exclusive control. Powerful politicians, specially Presidents, are truly feasting and enjoying that monopoly to their hearts content, like stealing government revenues and expenditures and buying SUV's, palatial mansions, raising over-extended families and putting them in government payrolls, as it pleases them, and junketing in foreign shores to take a breath of fresh air away from that the stinking air of the stinking Palace by side of the equally stinking Pasig River. Naturally the people's power cannot act to restrain those "Malays Politicians" because they simply made justice as none of the people's business. Those "Malay Politicians" run the business of their government departments, bureaus and offices like their own personal sari-sari stores. The most lucrative of them all are the Gambling and "Charity" Sweepstakes Government agencies, Floating Casinos, Bureau of Customs, Bureau of Internal Revenue, Bureau of Highways and Public Works, Agriculture Department, Education Department, all of which are the natural "babies" of Presidents and in turn, their bounties are channeled to the Army and PNP to buy the loyalty of their high ranking officers for "CPR" purposes in time of need to "keep the peace(?)". (That's a Bullshit!) (Pardon my language. You may edit tit out if you can't stomach it should you republish my comment. I'm just very mad against every corrupt official and if you could only gather all them in one place at Spratley Islands, I would be happy to stand in their midst and strap my body with IEDs and with the flip of a switch, put them all to eternal slumber. BTW, I'm not an Arab. I'm an Ilocano.) We omitted the American Grand Jury system that allows private citizens in whom sovereign majority rule resides to secretly and independently investigate and indict responsible parties in government abuses and corruption, We also struck out the American Trial Jury systems that allow private citizens which would have allowed them to have an independent deciding voice in the trial of "Malay" government grafters and send them to jail. As private citizens, their employment in the private sector cannot be used by accused public officials as bargaining chips to instill fear in making the people's decision in justice to send powerful grafters to jail. All these omitted jury mechanisms of justice were intended to force public officials to recognize and respect the people as their masters. As it stands today, Philippine justice simply look upon private citizens as idiots like feeble minded wards of the government as if lacking in discerning in whether what public officials are doing are morally right or wrong. Question: Should we in the private sector allow this so-called strong republic to view on us worse than second class citizens like idiots even though how much scholarly and intelligent we are in our chosen profession such as a Journalist, a Pastor, Bishop, Archibishop, a Rabbi a Hadji or an Imam a Doctor, a Nurse, a Salesperson, or Businessman? I think we should perceive this as an insult to our intelligence just because we are mere members of the private sector of our republic. We have set up Philippine criminal justice with an attribute of a Mafiosi Organization where the criminal offenders are the same deciding "authors of justice". Is this not a stupid justice system? It is a system of justice that investigates and, supposedly, to rectify the criminal acts of a powerful "Malay" offender but instead cover up the misdeeds of their elite members. They are like having imported an American vehicle, a "Lincoln Continental" but once it reached the Philippine shores, they had it cannibalized. Naturally it can't work. Now, the same "Malays" are asking the people to unite to fix the cannibalized "LC" but not providing the poor workers the "genuine" parts to restore it. To bring peace in the Philippines, we must adopt the American Grand Jury and Trial Jury systems because these are the self-braking mechanisms to prevent abuse of American democratic liberalism and over-intoxication of government powers. I hope every reader of this message will recommend its underlying suggestion to every civic leaders (i.e., Pastors, Bishops, Archbishops, Etc., regardless of denomination) in his community. Although not stated in the Philippine Bill of Rights (unlike in the American Bill of Rights in which the U.S. government is mandated to employ them), we can still set up the same systems to enforce our bill of rights on our own terms by invoking as well as implementing Article 2, Section 1, of the Philippine Constitution which states that: "Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them." The Grand Jury and Trial Jury systems are the basic enforcement rights of the Bill of Rights of the people of any American type of democracy. The sovereign rule of law belongs to the poor and the poorest, not to the politicians, because the poor composes the majority in any society. The sovereign rights of the people is not limited to electing their public officials alone. There is nothing in the Electoral provisions of the constitution implying that the people are thereby emasculated of their sovereignty once they have elected their public officials. The beauty of the Grand Jury System is that it is not barred by the boundaries of the so-called "Interdepartmental courtesies" because the people, acting through grand juries, are supreme over any government official regardless of whether such official claims to be the most favored politician or official of God in any branches of the Philippine government. Grand juries can investigate and interrogate any high official including the President like what the American people did with President Bill Clinton of recent history for his "marital detour" with Monica Lewinsky. Had he lied to the Grand Jury, he would not have been forgiven by the U.S. Senate in his impeachment and may have caused him to lose his office but also a criminal indictment for obstruction of justice and perjury. Have we had the Grand Jury systems in placed way back in Pres. Cory Aquino's time, the real independent "truth of how" PGMA got elected into office would have been known no more that 60 days from election date. There is likewise nothing in the Philippine constitution implying that the common people are the masters by fluttering politicians only during election campaigns. People's sovereignty is absolute. U.S. type democracy was never meant to follow the "Solomonic" system of government no matter how intelligent its chosen leader may be and then be limited to exist only for a little more than 40 years of natural life otherwise American democracy would not have lasted for over 200 years now. The Philippines is not without hope of prospering if we, in the private sector, will simply exercise our power to legislate the Jury Systems by the People's Initiative Process under Republic Act 6735. I wish you will allow the readers of your newsletters to visit my web site below and find out more other fundamental reasons why we need the Jury Systems adopted in the Philippine: http://anticorruption.homestead.com/Prosperity.html You have stated in essence that because of our Malay Culture it is hard for us to "entrust anyone now alive with the necessary single-mindedness to successfully grapple with our many problems." The reason for this is because of our mentality, specially by "Malay Politicians," in which we think that the "war on corruption" can be won by generals alone" and with complete disregard of "foot" soldiers. The "Malay Politicians" are afraid that the "Malay foot" soldiers would not be restrained to pull the "trigger" if ordered to send to jail a bad "Malay Politician." To grapple with our complex problem, it should be entrusted to the people collectively. You may not know how hungry a baby is if you will tape his mouth to prevent him crying out (for his "milk" justice.) Further and most worst of all, we are fighting the "war" of corruption without knowing who or what our basically enemy is - like what the stupid American generals did in the late 60's when they exposed their young solders in harms way in the Vietnam War and expended more than 60,000 of them in that war. Perhaps, if we could only ask President Bill Clinton the cause of the war on corruption both in the Philippines and in South Vietnam, most probably he would say: "IT'S JUSTICE, STUPID!" You may think he is a naughty "boy", but when it comes to real life problems, including his own, he knows what to say and do the right thing without lying.. Marlowe Camello, [email protected] Homeland, California, May 11, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, Here in your article, I salute you for the insight you wrote. I truly agree. Wheoever will sit on the presidency will still have the same problem and way of doing things because of our present set-up. Unless, there is really change in the hearts of the Filipino people, we will not see the correct and true leadership we aim for. I just hope you could have more of this write-up so people will be awakened to a more balanced insights on situations. Thank you so much. Ely Lerio, [email protected] May 11, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Reaction to �Holy Blood, Holy Grail� (April 02, 2006) Dear Mr. Abaya, I guess you know already the news about some bishops and some Catholics groups suggesting that RP ban the movie "The Vinci Code". The latest to give his opinion on this matter is Executive Secretary Ermita. I view such suggestions with curiosity but with interest since I am with a minority of non-believers. I regularly speak my own opinion too but in a smaller audience than you do. If you have time, please visit this site: http://www.philippineatheists.org/ Tony Basa, [email protected] May 11, 2006 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |
| Dear Mr. Abaya, My good friend in Hong Kong, journalist Isabel Escoda gave me your name and email address and also forwarded several of your recent blogs. I have read them and found them to be excellent commentary on the Philippines political state of affairs. Currently, working on a paper relating to democratic development in the Philippines, I found your blog on the wishy washy presidency very interesting indeed. I note your comments on the likes of Mahathir and Lee Kwan Yew. As you no doubt have read, Lee has on several occasions commented about the state of political stagnation in the Philippines and has argues that Asians in particular require an authoritarian leader who would be able to instill discipline in the country, etc. While I agree with your arguments regarding the Philippines infatuation with American liberalism and permissiveness, I question the need for or wisdom regarding a return to authoritarian rule in the Philippines. As I'm sure you recall, the recent experience of authoritarianism have done nothing to advance either the economy or civil society. Instead authoritarian rule has managed to plunder and terrorize the country. I would hasten to draw a distinction as between liberalism on the one hand and permissiveness on the other. While the benefits of liberty are manifest, those of permissiveness are not. I am very interested in further examining this concept and on getting your own insights on the subject. As such, I am beginning to explore a possible answer to the kinds of problems that have long beset the Philippines in terms of what thinkers such as Michael Sandel and Philip Pettit have called "republicanism". I would be very happy to meet with you in Manila possibly next week. I will be there from the 29th along with my wife. We both recently bought a flat there and eventually plan to relocate there. James Rice, [email protected] Assistant Professor, Philosophy Dept. Lingnan University, Hong Kong, May 26, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww |