More thoughts about the Philippines
To everyone who shared their thoughts about the political crisis in the Philippines on my blog, thank you. Some of us may have different views, but I respect your opinions anyway.While browsing through the Inquirer website, I came across this column by Raul Pangalangan. I am posting it because I support his views. It represents my standpoint toward the Gloriagate fiasco. Isn't it ironic how several of the highest officials in the country (Marcos, Erap, and now GMA) are brazen enough to break the law, then appeal to the public to "respect the Constitution?" Sure, another EDSA is overrated, and the problem is not so much with the leaders we install as with the corrupt system.
The tempting of the fed-up Filipino
July 08, 2005
By Raul Pangalangan
Inquirer News Service
"RESPECT the Constitution!" seems to be the most politically acceptable slogan of the hour. Yet history shows that our legal system has time and again shown its ambivalence to extra-constitutional change and, each time, we as a people have reacted differently.
Ferdinand Marcos governed under the 1973 Constitution, which was approved by a mere show of hands when we were under martial law -- woefully short of what the law required, namely, a proper plebiscite with appropriate safeguards. Yet the Supreme Court said, so what if it was illegal so long as the people have accepted the new Constitution? The sovereign people have spoken, who are we to stand in the way?
The Court asked: "If [the people] had risen up in arms and by force deposed the then existing government ..., there could not be the least doubt that their act would ... not be subject to judicial review .... We do not see [this] situation [to] be any different ..., if no force had been resorted to and the people, in defiance of the existing Constitution but peacefully ... ordained a new Constitution."
Until Marcos was ousted at Edsa People Power I in 1986, the nation's liberals and democrats reviled this infamous decision as judicial capitulation, or in the polite language of the time, as too much "judicial statesmanship."
After Edsa I, however, the Court similarly invoked the "political question doctrine" to uphold Cory Aquino's government, but this time, the same liberals and democrats applauded with gusto. Cory promulgated her "Freedom Constitution," not by virtue of a plebiscite, but through the "direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people." The Supreme Court justices, all Cory appointees, found that she became president "in violation of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution as ... Mr. Marcos [had already been declared] the winner in the [snap] elections" and that her government was "revolutionary in the sense that it came into existence in defiance of existing legal processes"-but its legitimacy was "not a justiciable matter [but] belongs to the realm of politics where only the people ... are the judge."
Constitutionalism faced its next challenge at Edsa People Power II, where people power ousted a genuinely elected president, Joseph Estrada. Then-Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo could take over only in case of his death, permanent disability, removal via impeachment, or resignation. But Estrada was alive, able, not impeached, and had not resigned. The Court could have taken the path of least resistance and invoked the political question doctrine, exactly the way it did in the earlier cases. Or, the Court could have institutionalized people power unabashedly, and said that Estrada was "incapacited," not by sickness but by induced political paralysis through "withdrawal of support" by various centers of power in government, including the military and civil society.
But no, the Court held that, unlike Cory who was candid about the extra-constitutional character of her government, Ms Arroyo had assumed office snugly under the present Constitution. Thus, the rather creative version that Estrada had "constructively resigned" based not on his resignation letter but on the Angara diaries. Most telling however were the warnings by the other justices about the "hooting throng," the "innate perils of people power," and their "disquietude [that] the use of 'people power' ['an amorphous ... concept'] to create a vacancy in the presidency [can very well] encourag[e] People Power Three, People Power Four, and People Power ad infinitum."
I cited all these in a May 2001 lecture for the Supreme Court's Centennial, but I could not have imagined we would face the power of this prophecy so soon with Ms Arroyo's June 2005 "apology."
All the Sunday front pages in the major dailies showed wonderful photos of a reflective Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, suffused in soft lighting in just the right hues and in the quiet of her study, doing what we all had longed for her to do: sit down and use her God-given talents to solve our country's problems. Her campaigners had denigrated her opponent as a high school dropout, and exalted her Ph.D. in Economics. If you voted for her because of her superior brains, congratulations; on Sunday, she finally sat down to use them.
Until then, she was content with photo ops, attending prayer rallies here, distributing goodies there. Government policies sounded fine on paper, but were hostage to politics in practice, negotiable at every turn, to pay for every political debt, or assuage each passing "tampo" [tantrums] by some loyal "trapo" [traditional politician]. And, as the Garci tapes reveal, no government office was too sacred for her will to power.
The Commission on Elections is an independent constitutional body, yet "Garci" could speak to "Ma'am" about rigging the vote ("'yung pinadagdagan ninyo" [those you had padded]). The Constitution speaks of a "professional" Armed Forces of the Philippines "insulated from politics," yet the tapes reveal names of officers made to act like faithful Mafia capos. Ah, yes, and that "dukut" [abduction] operation to prevent a witnesses from testifying -- that's straight from "The Godfather." Talk about devils quoting Scripture.
What exactly does the Rule of Law mean? It doesn't mean the mechanical application of rules. Rather it means governance through accountable institutions that can be held to respect our fundamental rights, including the sanctity of our vote. Uphold the Constitution, by all means, but don't use it as a refuge for waffling and fence-sitting. Uphold constitutionalism, by all means, just make sure you seize not upon "the letter that killeth but [upon] the spirit that giveth life."
found herself @ 8:37 PM
6 Comments:
I am on the fence here. GMA has tainted the presidency with her lies. She doesnt have the confidence of the people, I think its high time she vacates it. On the other hand, the people who seem to be clamoring for that position are no better either. If the Constitution will be followed, she steps down, Noli assumes. When Noli assumes, Loren will file for impeachment or file the same accusation of cheating and the cycle continues. I do not know what else can be done. But something has be done soon. Kawawa naman ang Pilipinas! That is the sentiment of everyone maybe these politicians should start thinking that way rather than "kawawa naman ako!"
Truly, Our politics have been on such a highwire. I just wished that whatever is the outcome of this present "uprising", our nation will come out all the better.
Hi Ate Raissa, pareho kita. I am on the fence gihap. I also anticipate how Loren can manipulate the situation for her self-serving interests. And I do believe opportunista an opposition. Balitaw, the politicians should start thinking about the big picture--what will happen to the Philippines, instead of what will happen to their political careers.
Nasabi ko rin ito sa isa pang kaibigan ko...bakit nga ba ang gulo-gulo dyan sa Pilipinas? Bakit nga ba sobrang “big deal” ang pag monitor ni PGMA ng eleksyon? Hindi kaya sanay na ang mga Pinoy sa kaguluhan kaya hinahanap-hanap nila ito? Bakit nila ginawa na i-wiretap ang telepono? Di nga ba bawal yan? Para lang ba yan makakuha ng butas para mapatalsik ang pangulo, at magkaroon ng panibagong People Power? Nawawalan na ng halaga yang People Power dahil sa tuwina na may uupong Presidente na may kaunting pagkakamali sa mga Pinoy ang resulta ay People Power o “Patalsikin ang Presidente”. Di ko alam ang Oligarchy, yan na ba ang tawag sa gobyerno ngayon sa Pilipinas at hindi na Democracy?
Kailan tayo magiging mature sa ating mga desisyon, mga kapwa ko Pinoy? Tayo naman sana ay magkaroon ng responsableng relasyon sa Pangulo. Hindi tama na sya lang ang magpapatakbo ng ating bansa. Dapat ay tulong-tulong at sama-sama. Yan bang mga putak-ng-putak dyan, may ginagawa ba sila para mapabuti ang bansa? Kung sana nagvo-volunteer nalang sila sa Gawad Kalinga kaysa bumabatikos sa gobyerno. Kung sana may maganda silang suggestion sa pangulo para mapaganda ang takbo ng bansa. Kung sana man lang may itinutulong sila…
Sakit na nga yan ng lipunan. Bakit nga ba may inilalagay sa posisyon na mas magaling magpatawa at maging aktor kaysa magpatakbo ng gobyerno? Sila na ba ang bagong idolo? Wala nang saysay ang mga mataas na pinag-aralan natin sa Unibersidad, nagpapakadalubhasa pa tayong maging Ekonomista, Abogado, Doktor, Guro, para sa wala?... (Meron daw pala, si Flavier ay doktor, ano bang pangarap ng karamihang doktor, ang maging nars? Yan ba ay turo ni Flavier o wala na syang magawa sa takbo ng isip ng mga tao satin?)... Para pumunta ng ibang bansa at doon magpaalila? Anong nangyayari sa mga mamamayang Pilipino? Ganyan na ba tayong mag-isip ngayon?
Lalong sumasakit ang ngipin ko, Diane, pasensya na sa napakahabang liham ko.
kaya nga dapat ngayon ang isipin ng mga ito ay "Bayan muna bago sarili" You are right the opposition is no longer called the opposition but the opportunists! mas bagay ha ira iton.
I was reading this article from INQ7 yesterday, and I broke into tears before I finshed it. I could realte, I see myself and hundreds of OCWs, I see the Filipino children, I see the evil of what going on back home...
"FILIPINO life has been restless since the world wars. It's too tiring. Too much politics in our daily life is poisoning the minds of future generation. How could we inspire the youth to make the nation a brighter side of the world tomorrow? The future seems to be dimmer for them; they would rather dream of working abroad when the time comes.
We have hardworking teachers and good education, but who benefits from these brains and hard work? Wasted time, wasted effort, wasted brains.
The primary Philippine export is its own people, because everybody wants to get out of the country. Getting away -- from pollution, overcrowding, protest rallies, rebels, kidnappers, high prices but low wages, and politicians -- is an easy reason to take the way out. But this would mean doing "the supreme sacrifice" of leaving the loved ones."
Post a Comment
<< Home