Only Borra for now

The Ombudsman skirted a potential crisis by technically complying with the Supreme Court’s demand -and throwing one Comelec commissioner, Resurreccion Borra, potentially to the wolves (potentially because he could, and even should,  be impeached, which is different from saying that the House will impeach him). But the other Comelec commissioners, including the Chairman, Benjamin Abalos, are still under investigation, while some smaller fry and people from the private sector face dismissal or charges.

Will the Supreme Court accept this pseudo-Solomonic solution? For now, it seems the Ombudsman dodged a bullet.

Technorati Tags: Philippines

Futile inquisition

The President seems prepared to hold an auto da fe for Bishop Yniguez. He’s royally ticked her off. She’s apparently given instructions for Papal encyclicals to be thoroughly vetted for anything that might serve as a condemnation of the bishop’s filing an impeachment complaint against her.

Precision when it comes to using and referring to Catholic terminology is essential. See definitions of encyclicals, of apostolic constitutions, and of canon law for useful distinctions and to understand the roles they play in Catholic life. While Papal letters and the decrees of Councils of the Church deal with faith and morals, the Code of Canon law serves as the body of laws with regards to the administration of the Catholic Church. The full text of the 1983 Code of Canon Law is online. Is there anything in canon law to prohibit Bishop Yniguez from doing what he did?From what I’ve found, there’s nothing.

In Chapter III, The obligations and rights of clerics: Canon 285, Sec. 3: Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power.

Book II, The People of God, Part II, The Hierarchical Constitution of the Church, Section 2, Particular Churches and their groupings, Title I, Particular Churches and the Authority Established in Them, Chapter II, Bishops, Article 1, Bishops in General, we find: §5. In the future, no rights and privileges of election, nomination, presentation, or designation of bishops are granted to civil authorities. In Article 2, Diocesan Bishops, there is nothing that pertains to the civil authorities.

A search of the word “civil” brings up all references to civil authorities in canon law. Happy hunting.

Here is a useful guide, though principally addressed to American Catholics. It’s titled on Faithful Citizenship, which further boils down and defines Catholic precepts for political participation:

The Church is called to educate Catholics about our social teaching, highlight the moral dimensions of public policies, participate in debates on matters affecting the common good, and witness to the Gospel through our services and ministries. The Catholic community’s participation in public affairs does not undermine, but enriches the political process and affirms genuine pluralism. Leaders of the Church have the right and duty to share Catholic teaching and to educate Catholics on the moral dimensions of public life, so that they may form their consciences in light of their faith.

The American bishops make reference to Doctrinal Note on some questions regardingThe Participation of Catholics in Political Life issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the Holy Office, and earlier known as The Holy Roman Inquisition), prepared by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (the present pope) and approved by John Paul II. Because of the nature of the responsibilities of that congregation, the paper represents the last word on the matter, though of course reference has to be made to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Reading the Doctrinal Note, I don’t see any prohibition on what Bishop Yniguez did. Indeed, the following passage (II. Central Points in the Current Cultural and Political Debate), seems particularly relevant:

3.  … It is not the Church’s task to set forth specific political solutions – and even less to propose a single solution as the acceptable one – to temporal questions that God has left to the free and responsible judgment of each person. It is, however, the Church’s right and duty to provide a moral judgment on temporal matters when this is required by faith or the moral law.[14] If Christians must «recognize the legitimacy of differing points of view about the organization of worldly affairs«,[15] they are also called to reject, as injurious to democratic life, a conception of pluralism that reflects moral relativism. Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society.

Speaking as a whole, the Philippine hierarchy never proposed one, particular solution, Individual bishops have professed opinions, because after all, a bishop is not the entire Church, and he only has influence outside his diocese; as I understand it, in such cases, he is speaking in his capacity as a citizen of some standing in the community, a person who can be listened to but who doesn’t necessarily have to be obeyed in secular matters in which he doesn’t have any particular competency (unless, say, he is also a lawyer).

Technorati Tags: CBCP, Philippines, politics

The Long View: Forked tongue

Forked tongue

By Manuel L. Quezon III
Inquirer
Published on Page A11 of the June 29, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

CHRISTIANITY means turning the other cheek. So when the Palace slaps the Pope, he has to grin and bear it. The President claims the Pope, through her, wants Catholic bishops to cease and desist from commenting on issues such as Charter change. The Pope, she says, looks dimly upon ecclesiastical comments or participation in political issues.

What did Pope Benedict XVI say, regarding the Catholic Church and politics? In his first encyclical letter, “Deus Caritas Est” (this can easily be accessed on the Internet; any Catholic parish should be able to provide the curious citizen with a copy), he wrote the following:
First, he explained the Catholic interpretation of the separation of Church and State: “The just ordering of society and the State is a central responsibility of politics. As Augustine once said, a State which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves.… Fundamental to Christianity is the distinction between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God … in other words, the distinction between Church and State, or, as the Second Vatican Council puts it, the autonomy of the temporal sphere. The State may not impose religion, yet it must guarantee religious freedom and harmony between the followers of different religions. For her part, the Church, as the social expression of Christian faith, has a proper independence and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community which the State must recognize. The two spheres are distinct, yet always interrelated.”

Second, he defined what politics should be about: “Justice is both the aim and the intrinsic criterion of all politics. Politics is more than a mere mechanism for defining the rules of public life: Its origin and its goal are found in justice, which by its very nature has to do with ethics. The State must inevitably face the question of how justice can be achieved here and now. But this presupposes an even more radical question: what is justice? The problem is one of practical reason; but if reason is to be exercised properly, it must undergo constant purification, since it can never be completely free of the danger of a certain ethical blindness caused by the dazzling effect of power and special interests.”

Third, on the Catholic Church’s social teachings, he said “It is not the Church’s responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest. Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due, is an essential task which every generation must take up anew. As a political task, this cannot be the Church’s immediate responsibility. Yet, since it is also a most important human responsibility, the Church is duty-bound to offer, through the purification of reason and through ethical formation, her own specific contribution towards understanding the requirements of justice and achieving them politically.”

Fourth, in rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what’s God’s, he said: “The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply.”

He explained that while “the formation of just structures is not directly the duty of the Church, but belongs to the world of politics…. The Church has an indirect duty here, in that she is called to contribute to the purification of reason and to the reawakening of those moral forces without which just structures are neither established nor prove effective in the long run.”

In other words, the Church, through its bishops and priests, lays down moral guidelines and interprets them, insisting all the while that human behavior reflects the principles of Christian thought. What the Pope calls for is for Catholic citizens to take up the fight to make the teachings of their faith impact on political life: “The direct duty to work for a just ordering of society, on the other hand, is proper to the lay faithful. As citizens of the State, they are called to take part in public life in a personal capacity. So they cannot relinquish their participation ‘in the many different economic, social, legislative, administrative and cultural areas, which are intended to promote organically and institutionally the common good.’ The mission of the lay faithful is therefore to configure social life correctly, respecting its legitimate autonomy and cooperating with other citizens according to their respective competencies and fulfilling their own responsibility. Even if the specific expressions of ecclesial charity can never be confused with the activity of the State, it still remains true that charity must animate the entire lives of the lay faithful and, therefore, also their political activity, lived as ‘social charity.’”
* * *
Full disclosure: the Black and White Movement, as an organization, is a petitioner in the impeachment complaint against the President. I am one of the convenors of Black and White.

Forked tongues

The organ grinder is away in Spain, but Jose Abueva has something to say anyway about One Voice. Nothing original, though.

Conrado de Quiros has a bone to pick with the Black & White Movement (I don’t know what got his goat about the impeachment, but his criticisms of Dinky Soliman and the CODE-NGO deal are valid and I myself have raised them with fellow members of BnW).

The administration is peeved over criticisms concerning its pronouncements on the pope. The Inquirer editorial adds its voice to the critics. The Palace also denounces a Catholic bishop filing an impeachment complaint. In Philippine Commentary, Dean Bocobo explains that appealing to the separation of Church & State is only valid if the interpretation of the principle is a proper one; Uniffors has more to say; Vincula explains things from a personal, religious point of view. My column today is on the subject.

Administration wants Jose Ma. Sison deported by the Dutch; and Tony Abaya and Juan Mercado weigh in with their views on National Democrats.

Connie Veneracion scrutinizes the impeachment complaint and finds its sufficient in form and substance.

Two interesting articles about political developments in Thailand: A devil’s bargain for democracy? and A perfect mess, and all from one man’s design.

Dean Bocobo will like this: ‘WiFi ng Bayan’ to offer free broadband, VoIP in RP.

Mindanews gets defaced. (Apparently not)

RG Cruz will become a full-time reporter for Channel 2.

Amusing reads: Sam hotdog, courtesy of McVie Show. On a related note, Manila Journal nominates this story for headline of the year.

From the Dwight D. Eisenhower presidential papers, a letter to President Elpidio Quirino concerning negotiations concerning US bases.An interesting confidential memorandum by  Eisenhower concerning President Ramon Magsaysay. See also, another document with interesting footnotes. A letter to President Carlos P. Garcia concerning the Philippine sugar quota (see also this memorandum to John Foster Dulles regarding CPG’s finagling an invitation to address the US Congress).

Technorati Tags: CBCP, Philippines, politics

President replaces Nuncio

While Ricky Carandang thinks Cha-Cha is dead, because the President’s ultimate objective is to wangle some kind of assurance that she can retire comfortably and safely in 2010, statements to the effect that the Pope has blessed constitutional amendments, and that the President has now replaced the Apostolic Nuncio as conduit of papal instructions to the Philippine hierarchy, makes me wonder if Carandang should be so confident.

The President claims the Papal Encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, is an injunction against “meddling in politics.” Was she, or those interpreting her interpretation of the Pope, right?

Read the text of Deus Caritas Est, which seems to me an injunction for lay Catholics not to keep relying on their bishops to do their fighting for them. The Pope does spell out, in the following passages, his views on the role of the Catholic Church in politics. It is clear, and makes some cardinal distinctions while insisting, properly, that laymen should take the lead in applying Christian values to political life:

a) The just ordering of society and the State is a central responsibility of politics. As Augustine once said, a State which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves:… Fundamental to Christianity is the distinction between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God (cf. Mt 22:21), in other words, the distinction between Church and State, or, as the Second Vatican Council puts it, the autonomy of the temporal sphere.[19] The State may not impose religion, yet it must guarantee religious freedom and harmony between the followers of different religions. For her part, the Church, as the social expression of Christian faith, has a proper independence and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community which the State must recognize. The two spheres are distinct, yet always interrelated.

Justice is both the aim and the intrinsic criterion of all politics. Politics is more than a mere mechanism for defining the rules of public life: its origin and its goal are found in justice, which by its very nature has to do with ethics. The State must inevitably face the question of how justice can be achieved here and now. But this presupposes an even more radical question: what is justice? The problem is one of practical reason; but if reason is to be exercised properly, it must undergo constant purification, since it can never be completely free of the danger of a certain ethical blindness caused by the dazzling effect of power and special interests.

Here politics and faith meet. Faith by its specific nature is an encounter with the living God—an encounter opening up new horizons extending beyond the sphere of reason. But it is also a purifying force for reason itself. …

The Church’s social teaching argues on the basis of reason and natural law, namely, on the basis of what is in accord with the nature of every human being. It recognizes that it is not the Church’s responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest. Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due, is an essential task which every generation must take up anew. As a political task, this cannot be the Church’s immediate responsibility. Yet, since it is also a most important human responsibility, the Church is duty-bound to offer, through the purification of reason and through ethical formation, her own specific contribution towards understanding the requirements of justice and achieving them politically.

The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply…

29. We can now determine more precisely, in the life of the Church, the relationship between commitment to the just ordering of the State and society on the one hand, and organized charitable activity on the other. We have seen that the formation of just structures is not directly the duty of the Church, but belongs to the world of politics, the sphere of the autonomous use of reason. The Church has an indirect duty here, in that she is called to contribute to the purification of reason and to the reawakening of those moral forces without which just structures are neither established nor prove effective in the long run.

The direct duty to work for a just ordering of society, on the other hand, is proper to the lay faithful. As citizens of the State, they are called to take part in public life in a personal capacity. So they cannot relinquish their participation “in the many different economic, social, legislative, administrative and cultural areas, which are intended to promote organically and institutionally the common good.” [21] The mission of the lay faithful is therefore to configure social life correctly, respecting its legitimate autonomy and cooperating with other citizens according to their respective competences and fulfilling their own responsibility.[22] Even if the specific expressions of ecclesial charity can never be confused with the activity of the State, it still remains true that charity must animate the entire lives of the lay faithful and therefore also their political activity, lived as “social charity”…

The President’s statements, as amplified by the Palace, seriously distorts the substance and even particulars of the papal letter. As this explanation of the encyclical is in Wikipedia puts it, “Summary on justice and charity, and the Church’s role. The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply… The Church’s charitable organizations, on the other hand, constitute an opus proprium, a task agreeable to her, in which she does not cooperate collaterally, but acts as a subject with direct responsibility, doing what corresponds to her nature. (§28-29, italics added).” Therefore, the recent CBCP statement on Charter Change, which indeed quotes this encyclical, demonstrated complete fealty to papal policy.

Anyway after waiting half an hour, the President got promises from the PM of Italy and she now gets to enjoy 2 days at Santiago de Compostela talking to Spanish businessmen.

Defensor: President was bamboozled into apologizing.

In case you were wondering, an announcement: rebellious officers might be punished. Maybe. Perhaps.

In case you wondered if he was still alive, former President Ramos says he has an opinion on insurgency.

NEDA says the 25 peso wage increase compensates for the erosion to spending power due to last month’s inflation. There are too many air conditioners at the National Book Development Board.

Update on events in Thailand. Kuala Lumpur worried over being portrayed as unfriendly (and seen as officially extravagant).

My Arab News column for this week is, One Voice Wants to Expand Democracy, Not Restrict It (this might answer some questions raised by Julio Rey B. Hidalgo). Incidentally, One Voice is prepared to challenge the so-called “people’s initiative” before the Comelec and the courts.

The Inquirer editorial points out impeachment should be easier to achieve by one vote. Amando Doronila reiterates his belief the original impeachment should have reached the senate, and says the present impeachment is doomed. Conrado de Quiros on assuming leaders recognize the same limits as their peers.

A fascinating column by Bong Austero on matching what schools teach and what job markets want.

Greg Macabenta says Filipinos overseas have political clout -if only they exercised it.

Cocktales reveals that if the Manila Daily Bulletin’s published earnings are any guide, Philippine broadsheets are decreasing in profits.

Iloilo City Boy takes a look at the Arroyos. I think in this case, his view of how thinks work does not reflect how people really decide how to fight issues.

baratillo@cubao helps rip media a new asshole in bare naked media.

Technorati Tags: CBCP, constitution, impeachment, media, military, people’s initiative, Philippines, politics

Sandbagging the Pope

In contrast to the coverage in Catholic media (see reports in Catholic World News and AsiaNews.it), local coverage of the President’s audience with the Pope has been… gooey. The Catholic news media paid attention to nuances in Vatican diplomatic terminology (which, as befits an ancient and experienced institution, is nuanced and punctilious) which was totally ignored and abandoned by the President on down.

An equally gooey Inquirer report quotes the President, who cleverly claimed Divine Blessings as having showered upon her:

Ms Arroyo emerged from her 20-minute talk with the Pope claiming that she had virtually gotten his blessing for the way she ran the government and for pursuing policies in line with Catholic teachings.

“The Pope is very supportive and encouraging,” she said, adding that a big part of the talk was about the situation in the Philippines.

“He loves the Philippines and is happy about our policies, which are attuned to the teachings of the Church,” Ms Arroyo said in an interview with government television station NBN 4.

She said these policies included the abolition of the death penalty law, the non-passage of the divorce law, and the preferential option for the poor.

Ms Arroyo noted that the Pope led their conversation and that he was very knowledgeable about and interested in what was happening in the Philippines…

“I’m encouraged by his comments. He knows about issues in the country. It’s very inspiring and he’s very supportive of our policies and our work for the poor,” the President said as she revealed that she had invited the Pope to visit the country.

The Pope does not look kindly on the alleged meddling of the Church in Philippine affairs, said Ms Arroyo, who has been the target of criticisms from certain Filipino bishops.

She said she got this impression after she received a copy of an encyclical on the Church and justice which, according to her, spoke of “the role of the Church in the search for justice.”

It also “clearly proposes a good relationship between the Church and State,” she said…

The encyclical clearly stated that the “Church should avoid politicking in its actions. It should help uplift the plight of the poor and eradicate poverty,” the President said.

Ms Arroyo said the government was already helping the Church accomplish its “preferential option for the poor.”

Let’s take a look at a sample of what the Pope has to say about politics and the Catholic Church, just last March in a speech, Church Speaks Up for “Promotion of Dignity of the Person”: note that nowhere does he put a premium on “a good relationship,” but rather, he proposes one that must necessarily be combative at times:

Above all, I trust that the effective and correct implementation of this relationship will start now, with the cooperation of all political movements irrespective of party alignments. It must not be forgotten that, when Churches or ecclesial communities intervene in public debate, expressing reservations or recalling various principles, this does not constitute a form of intolerance or an interference, since such interventions are aimed solely at enlightening consciences, enabling them to act freely and responsibly, according to the true demands of justice, even when this should conflict with situations of power and personal interest.

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable.

Insofar as the President’s claims go, it would be correct to state that the Pope would be pleased with the non-passage of a divorce law, the repeal of the death penalty, and of course a preferential option for the poor.

But as to her divining a papal preferences for smooth relations, that’s a stretch. And as for her putting words in the Pope’s mouth: support, specifically, for her government, the totality of her policies (and not just those specifics, which the Pope in his speech said is the guide for Catholic intervention in political affairs, and that includes “the dignity of the person” which means human rights, for an administration questioned on its human rights record!), seems even more of a stretch. As does her claiming the Pope, through her, has basically frowned on the CBCP’s misgivings on Charter Change. If the Pope felt it to be an important and publicly-acceptable message, it would have been part of the official Vatican statement; but the official statement made no mention of criticizing the Catholic hierarchy or endorsing specific political programs such as constitutional amendments.

Bottom line: the President knows that diplomatic practice prohibits the Vatican from belying whatever she says, even if it might be patently untrue, or a distortion of what took place.

What else is wrong with this picture (and the caption)?

PGMA RECEIVES POPE’S BLESSINGS — President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo kneels while kissing the ring of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI during her audience with the Holy Pontiff Monday noon (June 26 –6:00 p.m. Manila time) at the Papal Library in the Vatican. (Marcelino Pascua — OPS-NIB Photo)

First, what is going on in the picture? A president paying obeisance to a Pope, and not in a manner called for by the President’s position as head of state of a secular republic. In this day and age, heads of state shake hands, and what is appropriate for a Catholic private citizen is not correct for a President, whether or not she’s a Catholic. Second, no blessing is taking place in the photo. Third, the terminology is all wrong: there is no such thing as the “Holy Pontiff” in the terminology of governments. The Pope’s title is “Holy Father,” he can be referred to as the Roman Pontiff, but “Holy Pontiff” is a misleading mismatch of bits and pieces (then again whoever writes these captions demoted the King of Spain to a prince, so go figure).

Lito Banayo takes a playful look at what he thinks should have transpired in Rome. Philippine Commentary points to what the President’s trying to defuse: Church opposition to Charter Change.
Reports in The Daily Tribune, and Malaya, on the impeachment complaint.

Read the full impeachment complaint:

You can also find out details and updates in Bantay Impeachment 2.

(Full disclosure: the Black & White Movement, as a group, is a signatory to the impeachment complaint, and I am one of the convenors of the Black & White Movement).

Kiko Pangilinan resigned to a parliamentary system? Tell me it ain’t so.

Mahathir as one-man opposition: so what’s the difference between his fiscalizing and what politicians here at home do? And Thaksin continues to be a wriggly one.

Tony Abaya has a bone to pick with One Voice. A critical look also from Upoytaoism.

Connie Veneracion has a bone to pick with government’s helping to promote the certification of Kosher foods (it’s a market, waiting to be taken advantage of; and how companies wanting to tap this export market could separate costs for Kosher certification from costs passed on to all consumers is beyond me; neither doesher nit-picking on what Kosher certification is, philosophically speaking, nor why it would be wrong for government to support any means to expand the market for Philippine-produced foodstuffs) .

Comelec AKO has a list of questions to start asking re: candidates.

Technorati Tags: CBCP, constitution, impeachment, journalism, Philippines, politics

Round 2

The President is in Rome to visit the Pope, and she is bearing gifts (the Palace press release amusingly demoted the King of Spain by referring to him as “royal highness,” the title of a prince). Mike Defensor says there should be no lese majeste while the President is overseas. Jove Francisco, part of the press corps covering the trip, blogs from Bangkok airport.

Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives, the citizen-complainants in this year’s impeachment effort filed their complaint, which was endorsed by two opposition congressmen. My column for today, Macalintal’s surprise, puts forward support for the impeachment complaint, and tackles the surprising argument of the President’s lawyer (Fel Maragay loyally defends Macalintal). Maragay’s column, I think, indicates an emerging effort to start chipping away at the recently-restored reputation of the Supreme Court, to wear it down, if not for impeachment purposes, than to facilitate a favorable response to the “people’s initiative” folks.
One Voice is challenged by defenders of the President to seek relief from the Supreme Court: Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. explains why critics of the “people’s initiative” have to wait until proponents of the Palace’s version of charter change go to the Comelec. Incidentally, he obliquely suggests the proponents haven’t taken the step of filing a petition for a referendum with the Comelec because they may be further from securing the signatures they need than they claim. Dan Mariano thinks One Voice’s attempt to present a reasonable solution may be viewed as a sign of weakness by the President’s “boosters”; he also goes over some arguments similar to Bernas’. Rita Jimeno tries to link the timing of One Voice to Fidel V. Ramos (who I don’t think even registers on the conciousness of people anymore since he is politically, the living dead), and wonders where One Voice gets its funding (one thing I can say for sure: it’s not coming from the presidential or congressional pork barrel). I must say though, that their Big Lie type of propaganda “it’s the elite! the elite!”- for its shrillness and constancy, has an effect: disguising the nature of their own proponents and supporters. A more level-headed approach is put forward by Bong Austero in his column (though if he dissected the triune proposals of Abueva-Sigaw-the House, I don’t see how he could give it the benefit of anything but abhorrence). Eggy Apostol and some others endorse One Voice. Big Mango does, too.

NPA’s attack dump trucks.

What is a gerenkesplunk? Find out! An interesting article on why Boeing shouldn’t scrap it’s internet service on aircraft. American newspapers are shrinking.

Rasheed Abou-Alsamh takes a look at the Uniffors blog; a retired ambassador weighs in. Billy Esposo on Filipino motorists. Gigi Goes Gaga on Filipino motorists abroad.  Ricky Carandang, apropos of automobiles, explains why oil prices are high.

Red’s Herring on the Chinese contributions to our culture. Barako Cafe points to the perils of academic blogging.

AsiaPundit on rude Asian cities.

village idiot savant deals with three insistent kids -and a debate over whether he should buy them tempura or balut.

Isolde Amante on the media, tourism, and good and bad news.

Stepping on Poop’s conspiracy theory aside, the President was laid low by creepy crawlies in her tummy (best text joke of the weekend: There’s a new “movement” that’s trying to kill GMA, d Loose Bowel Movement). And while I didn’t eat at Osteria (RG Cruz blogged about the President’s intestinal woes, from start to finish: “and so it was just diahrrea”), but the weekend left me feeling unpleasant because of what the Philippine Star called (in the case of the President) a “bum stomach.” Recalling what I overheard a doctor telling a patient once, I spent Sunday dosing myself with Yakult. It was once a drink I consumed during recess, and so there’s a kind of childish satisfaction that comes from Yakult-guzzling. Then I read this explanation of the origins of Yakult:

L. casei Shirota
LcS was originally isolated and selected from the faeces of an infant.

Oh boy. But then, what the hell. I then read this rather chirpy and amusing testimonial in praise of Yakult and decided to ignore the origins of the beneficial bacteria. ‘m not sure though, if I’d describe it as an “intelligence elixir”! And I really am skeptical about the benefits of inhaling Yakult vapors.

Technorati Tags: Blogging, constitution, impeachment, journalism, media, people’s initiative, Philippines, politics

Exposición Filipiniana

Here’s an interesting book and exhibition in Spain : Exposición Filipiniana. See the online gallery. And read John Silva’s review. There’s also a review in the Spanish newspaper El Pais. The Ayala Museum and the Ateneo de Manila University’s Art Gallery curator participated in the exhibition.

Courtesy of Eating the Sun: a new translation of Rizal’s Noli Me Tangere is going to be published by Penguin Classics. Rizal is the first Filipino author to be published by Penguin.

Sylvia Mayuga on how the internet serves as meditation room, Agora, and emergency room for Filipinos everywhere.

Roger L. Simon muses on planned government leaks and the role they play in media management.

Technobiography on establishing Wikis so local communities can participate in the drafting of legislation.

Something to strive for in The Philippine Presidency Project: (via Pajamas Media) a website “maps the corpus” of all American State of the Union addresses from 1790 to 2006.

The Sunday Punch of Pangasinan has an essay that takes a fond look at the elderly.

Technorati Tags: Philippines

National identity

My father’s 80th birth anniversary is today, I’d hoped to have been able to put together, and publish, his essays from the 1950s to the 1990s (he died in 1998) by today; but the effort remains far from finished. Let me reproduce, instead, one of his essays from the 1960s, perhaps his most productive period, intellectually.

Note: First part of this article was published on July 27, 1966 and the concluding article on August 3, 1966

Culture in the Nationalist Struggle:
A Sense of National Identity
By Manuel L. Quezon, Jr.

SOME years ago, I was asked to define nationalism and I declined, feeling incapable of doing justice to the term on such short notice. I shall not attempt to define it now, but I will say that it involves basically the assertion and defense of identity, the identity of a people conscious of itself as a people. If my reader will grant me so much, it follows that official recognition of the independence of a nation does not of itself mean that the goals of nationalism have been fulfilled.

In fact, nations or states have been created to satisfy the needs or conveniences of international power politics, with the corresponding recognition according to international law. Those political creations have broken apart as soon as circumstances permitted, because the citizens had no consciousness of being a people.

We need not go deep into history to find an example.

Malaysia fell apart almost as soon as it was formed, with Singapore choosing to go its own way and the Bornean territories still undecided whether to remain definitely within the Federation. This has happened because of the absence of any feeling of national identity thus far which would make it possible for those territories to be incorporated fairly easily into a political unit largely Malay. This sense of identity is something which, at the time of the Spanish conquest of the Philippines, could have enabled the Visayas to be as easily incorporated into a political system centered on Menado, in the Celebes, as into a political system centered in Manila. Given such a historical development, Visayans today would be proud of being Indonesians instead of Filipinos.

The international recognition of the sovereign status of a territory, therefore, does not create a national identity. The former presupposes the latter, and if that national identity does not already exist, it must be created if the state is to survive the centrifugal forces which tend to blow it apart.

The identity of a people is not something simple. Even identity of race is not the determining factor—at least not necessarily the determining factor. France is a perfect example. I doubt if there is a country in the world where differing, and even contradictory, political opinions have been carried to their logical extremes as in France. Yet the consciousness of French nationality has overridden all divisions.

We commonly think of France as a Latin country—I shall leave the accuracy of this idea to the judgment of those better qualified than I, but there is no doubt that there are very large non-Latin strains: Brittany is Celtic, Normandy is Nordic (at least there is a large Nordic element), part of the South is Basque. Nevertheless, every Frenchman is first and foremost a Frenchman, and being of an ethnic strain different from the majority of Frenchmen makes no one feel less of a Frenchman for it, nor do the rest consider him less of a Frenchman.
One of the strongest elements making for this sense of identity, possibly the strongest, is the sense of community in French culture. In other words, cultural identity—not to be confused with cultural monotony or uniformity—imbibed in the very soul of the French people, is a cement which makes any thought of a French breakup unthinkable. Even if every single state in the world were to withdraw recognition of France, France would still be France.

Concept of Culture

I have dwelt on the case of France at some length to emphasize the role which cultural nationalism should play in our nationalist struggle, which has by no means been won. Speaking of “the Philippine soul,” the outcome of Philippine culture, will sound hopelessly intellectual, or romantic to some, and just plain stupid to others, so we had better steer clear of such phraseology. Let us be satisfied with trying to answer two questions, by no means simple, but at any rate more down-to-earth:

Is there a Filipino culture?

What is it?

Any answer we give will necessarily be challenged (at least in their own minds) by those whose lines is the study of culture, since space does not permit anything approaching an adequate treatment of the subject. But never mind.

The modern sociological concept of culture is that of “a way of life common to a particular people and based on a social tradition which is embodied in its institutions, its literature and its art.” This view of culture is attributed to T.S. Elliot by Christopher Dawson (both among the most eminent students of culture in our age), and he agrees.

Taking this definition on the strength of the authority of the aforementioned authors, and using it as a standard, can we say that there is such a thing as Philippine culture? I believe we can answer yes.

The negative proof of this reply should be obvious to anyone who has traveled abroad or had extensive contact with foreign communities in our own land. Those Filipinos who have been to Spain (most have liked it) have found it definitely foreign, “different,” despite many similarities in our customs and attitudes. Those who have been to the United States (many have disliked it) have also found it foreign, “different,” despite some similarities (not very many) in our customs and attitudes. This strangeness persists, notwithstanding our continual exposure to the “American way of life” through the press, movies, and television and the continuing close national relationship with the United States, a relationship which does not exist with Spain.

I have used Spain and the United States as examples, because they are the two countries which have had the strongest, because most recent and politically dominant, influence on us.

Lest the Filipino’s feeling of strangeness be dismissed as due to the white faces and to the contrast between Occidental and Oriental, let us consider those who are close to us geographically and in physical appearance, the Indonesians, the Malaysians (those of them who are Malays) and the Thais.

The similarity in physical appearance and in certain social characteristics which seem to be common to tropical peoples masks the differences to a considerable extent, nevertheless the differences are there, and no matter how the Filipino may like those peoples, he will still find their ways foreign to him. If the Filipino finds himself different from all those peoples mentioned, despite all sorts of similarities, it can only be because there is a certain “hard core” of culture which makes him different, something a good deal more basic and permanent than a passport.

The Filipino’s consciousness of the different way of life of other nations can only be explained by the existence of a standard with which he can compare it, namely, his own, the Filipino way of life.

The positive proof of the existence of a Philippine culture shades almost imperceptibly into the identification and description of Philippine culture, at least in some of its principal outlines.

For the positive proof, or, at any rate, one positive proof, we must appeal to our own experience.

The family is the life-cell of the social organism and certainly there is a common pattern of family life among Filipinos. The almost universal protest against certain patterns of behavior among some of the younger generation—in their extreme manifestations, they are what is lumped under the general term “juvenile delinquency,” new and unfamiliar to the older generation—are an unmistakable sign that they jar the sensibilities of the rest of the population because they do not fit in with what has come to be considered the normal course of family life.

Pakikisama, whose nearest English equivalent is the now rather stilted-sounding word “comradeship”—not “fellowship” because it allows for a certain amount of insincerity, nor “public relations,” because it has an unmistakable ring of commercialism and both degrade the very concept—is so much a part of Philippine social tradition that gang-ism has stolen its credentials and is thus all the more difficult to expel from our midst.

The word “mabait,” which I hesitate to translate because of its complex connotations, but which is commonly and most infelicitously rendered “good,” magaan ang dugo, which cannot be translated at all; both are universally admired qualities inseparably connected with our social tradition.

With these three instances, significant instances, pervading as they do our lives, I believe the case for the existence of a Philippine culture is sufficiently established.

Now, what is Philippine culture? A culture ordinarily is the outcome of many factors, and as such is a complex thing. It is the product of the interplay of many influences—climate, geography, the meeting and mingling of different ethnic and racial groups, religion, the development of a native civilization and the impact of other civilizations, etc.

A “pure” culture almost necessarily is an impoverished culture. A remarkable case in point is the hillbillies of the United States. I think we are justified in treating them as a cultural unit because, up to recently at any rate, they lived in a world apart. The unfortunate situation of the hillbillies requires no comment.

Petrified Culture

Egypt and China seem exceptions to the general rule of the necessity of external contacts—significant contacts, that is—for the development of a great culture, since both civilizations appear to have been almost entirely of indigenous, localized origin. But perhaps the petrification and death of both civilizations are the outcome of the absence of streams of renewal.

But the general rule holds: a rich culture requires the concurrence of many factors, and presumably the potential for growth and vitality is greater the more complex the factors involved. However, the process of formation and development of a culture does not take place through a mere putting together, a mechanical juxtaposition of factors.

The cultural process is an assimilative process, an organic process similar to that of nutrition, whereby a living body takes in external elements, of which some are discarded and others become a living part of the living body so that they cease to be external—they become part and parcel of the body, and in turn take part in the process of further assimilation.

Philippine culture has a background so rich that potentially we have one of the greatest cultures possible. What it is, even a thick book could hardly define adequately, certainly not a brief article. I shall limit myself to indicating some of the materials that have gone into the process of its formation, and possibly an idea of what will emerge.

The racial composition of the Filipino people merits serious and extensive study.
Presumably the original inhabitants of these islands were the Negritos. We should be indignant that these, our original Filipinos, are living an existence so completely on the margins of the mainstream of Filipino life. The fact that they are today relegated, as it were, to the status of an exotic plant that has managed to survive should not lead to the conclusion that they have not left definite contributions and influences on our present-day life.

If the touching friendliness of today’s Negritos, to the point of their being easily taken advantage of, was characteristic of them in ages past, that may well be the origin of the same trait, although somewhat reduced, in today’s Filipinos.

To describe the various pagan tribes—those of the Mountain Province, Palawan, and Mindanao— and their possible cultural influences is not here possible, but I imagine that many beliefs which affect our daily lives are due to them and their animistic religion, beliefs which we do not even suspect we owe to them. The very limited territorial extension of each of those groups would naturally limit the extent of their influence on the subsequent inhabitants, except where their various cultures coincided, as in the example cited.
The various waves of Malay immigration are an entirely different matter. The Malays occupied pretty well all areas of the archipelago, and their customs seem to be almost universal in all Malay lands. We may, therefore, consider the Malays and their culture as constituting the raw materials of our present Philippine culture, the basic organism which underwent the cultural process of meeting, impact and assimilation, with its inevitable modification of the original organism.

It is the original Malay population, which has mainly undergone the influences of the East, first of all, the stream of culture and civilization and race. One stream came from China, fairly constant and unchanging through the ages, the other from India, through Indonesia, modified by Indonesia in a very significant manner, since in Indonesia itself the influx of Indian culture had become Indonesian and yet continued to undergo influences that changed as India itself changed, from Brahmanism, to Buddhism to Islam.

A Unique People

It was these influences, which undoubtedly underwent modifications in the Philippines, which had already modified the original Malay way of life, which, assimilated in varying ways and degrees, constituted the way of life of these Islands, when the impact of the West was felt, an impact which has made us a people unique in the world.

I say unique in the world, because we are of the East and the West, but not the East and not the West, we are of the North and the South and yet not the North nor the South: we are ourselves, Filipinos, through a beautiful and also unique process of assimilation of foreign influences to that we were originally.

This process, imperfect as all human processes must be, has given us today’s Philippine culture, with a considerable degree of stability, necessary for a process of development and assimilation rather than disintegration, yet blessed with a degree of flexibility which alone can make further progress possible—a culture rich in variety without irreducible or violently conflicting streams, so that we can agree to disagree, yet with an underlying unity which binds the whole fabric together, so that we are definitely one people, with the consciousness of a common national destiny.

How to recognize this basic unity, in what it consists, and how to protect the necessary minimum of stability to enable us to deal with the modern world and its influences in such a way that the result is a healthily assimilative rather than disruptive and destructive, is a very serious problem with which we are faced.

Our survival as a nation depends on our success in dealing with the problem. I honestly believe that failure will turn into a common phenomenon what we find more and more often in individual cases—the faceless Filipino.

All over Asia, Africa, and Latin America today, there is a tremendous surge of nationalism at a time when in Europe, the homeland of nationalism, there is a marked trend in the opposite direction. Perhaps a partial explanation lies in the contrasting experiences of nationalism in those areas.

In Asia, Africa, and Latin America, we view nationalism as a constructive force, a movement absolutely indispensable if the developing nations are to survive and grow in freedom, dignity, and self-respect. Our nationalism has already performed one function—the attainment of independence—but a great many tasks remain undone.

On the other hand, the Europeans have found in the course of two World Wars that, unless their nationalism is considerably toned down, it would end by destroying those very nations which it is intended to serve.

The European attitude toward General De Gaulle points up this attitude very clearly. While there is widespread admiration for De Gaulle as a leader and statesman who saved France and reestablished her as a force to reckon with in international affairs, there is even more widespread opposition, to his strong French nationalism as being a stumbling-block to the unification of Europe, which alone can save the various nations that comprise Europe.
If nationalism, which for so long amounted to a frenzy of the European nations, has brought those same nations to the sorry pass where it threatens to destroy them, while nationalism has been such a potent force for good in other parts of the world, it can only be because the term nationalism conceals both a constructive and a destructive force.

As a Destructive Force

It is destructive as it is jingoistic, insofar as it involves a crude belief in the innate superiority of one nation over another or over all others, insofar as it sets itself up against any others and, by implication and potentially, against all others. It is destructive when it reposes on falsehood, fiction, and irrational emotion, especially hate and greed; when its basic attitude is “against” as much as, or even more than, “for”.

These qualities grew increasingly prominent in Europe as the 19th century drew to a close and the 20th century dawned. The increasing obsession with national aggrandizement, for a place in the sun, not in conjunction with others but to the exclusion of others or at any rate to an exaggerated overshadowing of others, led to a paranoic self-centeredness and fear of other nations, which in turn led to the build-up of armaments on a scale inconceivable in any previous age.

The “Concert of Europe,” instead of producing harmony, degenerated into a Babel in which each participant tried to drown out the rest. The inevitable explosion came—World War I.
It is tragic that Europe had not learned its lesson. The end of the War, and the uneasy peace that followed, merely served to give a respite for the same old tensions to build up to an even greater explosion—World War II.

European Nationalism

From all indications, Europe has at last learned its lesson—that war solves nothing if its objective is national vengeance rather than justice, and that nationalism, in its European form, is the breeding ground of yet more wars. Thus, the impatience with the anti-foreign type of nationalism; thus the willingness to co-exist with communism, not out of approval for communism but in the hope of avoiding another war which, due to the advance weaponry, would end, not in victory or defeat but the peace of common worldwide graveyard. Thus, a general suspicion, whether justified or unjustified—I believe it is the latter rather than the former—of De Gaulle and his actuations. As far as jingoistic nationalism is concerned, the Europeans “have had it,” and want no more of it.

The emerging nations are only now able to participate as actors on the stage of world affairs. They see how nationalism built up Europe. They see the positive, constructive aspect of nationalism and are perhaps less conscious of the disastrous effects of its perversion.

National Dignity

Conscious or not, the newly independent nations of Africa and Asia are, by and large, not building toward the old destructive nationalism of Europe. They are aiming at the condition of national dignity and relative self-sufficiency long since attained by European nations and already taken for granted, like the air we breathe, a condition which would have been attained and which would have been even more widespread in Europe had the unfortunate aspects of nationalism been kept within bounds.

To us, nationalism is a force for the attainment in the future of what Europe attained long ago. If our nationalism at times manifests some of the symptoms of old-style, European nationalism, it is unfortunate, but it is within our power to apply the remedy. The disastrous experiences of other nations should serve as a strong corrective and surely we are not so blind as to fail completely to read and learn the lessons of history.

After such a lengthy warning against the perverted brand of nationalism, it will doubtless sound inconsistent for me to advocate cultural nationalism.

The very term “cultural nationalism” brings echoes of precisely the kind of stupid jingoism which I strongly condemn. It spontaneously brings memories of the Nazi claims to a superior “Aryan” (that is to say, German) culture, the proof of Aryan superiority and the justification for the subjugation and even extermination of lesser breeds. I readily grant the objection to the term “cultural nationalism,” but there is no more reason to reject the term because of its connotations in other lands than there is for rejecting the term nationalism itself for the same reason.

At this point, I cannot think of a better term and perhaps the term will be less objectionable if we clarify and delimit it in the same way as nationalism itself and exclude from its idea the same perversions that we excluded from genuine nationalism.

What then do I mean by cultural nationalism? First and foremost, it must be something positive, constructive, and realistic. It must be rational and logical, not excluding sentiment but keeping it firmly under control. It involves caution, but not cowardly fear of anything foreign or new merely because it is foreign or new.

Cultural nationalism demands as unprejudiced mind, so that we may be able to take stock of ourselves and act accordingly, be able to appraise foreign influences so that that contact with foreign cultures may be a process of selective, enriching, assimilation rather than indiscriminate acceptance or rejection, with inevitable cultural disintegration or arrest. We want cultural preservation and growth, but not petrifaction or a loss of identity. The process must be an organic one, as the word assimilation indicates, not one of mere external addition, as one dumps more stones on a pile of stones to make the heap grow.

We speak of preservation and growth, but—is there anything to be preserved or to grow? Is there a Philippine culture at all? Only ignorance or stupidity can deny it.

Competent students of culture have not, to my knowledge, denied the existence of our culture, of “a way of life common to [Filipinos] based on a social tradition and manifesting itself in [their] institutions, literature, and art.” (Christopher Dawson). It is not surprising that our fellow-countrymen who have made cultural investigations should realize its existence with relative ease, but that foreign sociologists and cultural anthropologists inevitably come to the same conclusion and recognize our culture even better than the average Filipino places the conclusion beyond dispute.

Just what our culture consists of, I am not competent to say. I can say, however, that it is extremely complex. It is that very complexity which often leads Occidentals to classify us either as Occidentals with brown skins or Orientals with a very superficial Western veneer.
It is that same complexity which leads some Asians to say that we are not Asian at all, although Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesians, Nepalese, Syrians, etc. do not deny it of each other, much as they differ among themselves.

It is that same complexity which bewilders us and drives us to attempt a total identification with West or East (in the sense in which Asians sometimes exclude us from it), an attempt impossible in one case, meaningless in the other.

It is the same complexity from which some try to escape by taking refuge in an imaginative reconstruction, more or less accurate as the case may be, of Philippine culture at the time of Magellan’s arrival, setting up that culture as the only true Philippine culture and de-Filipinizing all subsequent generations, including our own.

In my opinion this attitude is untenable. It separates the pre-Spanish from subsequent cultural developments, considering the former as wholly indigenous—they were not, in the narrow sense of the word—and the latter as spurious. The attitude gives too much credit to the ability of Spanish and American culture to supplant our previous culture and replace it with something different; the attitude also gives no credit whatsoever to our ancestors for any capacity to transform and assimilate foreign influences, giving them a distinctively Filipino character.

One who holds such a view turns his back to the most significant and most remarkable—I would say most admirable—fact about our culture and ourselves: that complexity has not prevented unity, nor unity led to monotonous uniformity. Instead of our being proud of our unique cultural achievement—it is our achievement, not the Spaniards’ or the Americans’—we are ashamed of ourselves, see only the faults and dangers of our culture and see them magnified out of all proportion.

Pride In Our Culture

I can think of few worse threats to a vigorous nationalism than a nation despondent over its culture. The Filipino culture is a monument to our ability through the centuries to master the influences which outwardly seemed solely to master us—for to be transformed mechanically is to be mastered, but to modify, to transform, to assimilate, and to give a distinctive character is also in the best, non-destructive sense, to master.

Can we continue to do so? In the past, we had two powerful allies, distance and time. The jet age has nullified distance. Mass media of communications and daily contact with foreigners at all levels of society have robbed us of time, time to transform and assimilate, time to weigh—for selective acceptance or rejection—the avalanche of influences which press on us and threaten to bury us.

Only a strong cultural nationalism, a pride in our culture and heritage and the determination that we shall not be stampeded into change by anything foreign, that whatever changes we make, of native or foreign origin will be through our own well-considered judgment, through an organic process which will not shatter our culture but strengthen and improve it—only such a strong cultural nationalism can save us and serve as a firm anchor for our nationalism.—#

Technorati Tags: Philippines

One Voice

Today, at 10 AM, One Voice is being launched.

My column for today, One voice for hope, explains why I’ve joined it.

Please read our position paper. And take a look at our presentation:

Consider adding your voice to ours.

The citizen-complainants in the impeachment of the President will also hold a press conference at noon.

At 1:30, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and other lawyers will hold a meeting to commemorate the Supreme Court’s striking down Executive Order 464, etc.

Technorati Tags: Philippines, politics

Next Page »