One Day More

Listen to “One Day More.”

Itaguyod ang Katotohanan.

It is time to be COUNTED!

Join us at the Friday Inter-Faith Prayer Rally

Ayala cor. Paseo de Roxas – 4:00 to 8:00 PM

Where former President Cory Aquino and Jun Lozada will join us as we make the call for Truth and Accountability.

Black and White Movement, together with Hyatt 10/La Salle 60, MBC, MAP, Manindigan,

and other professional and church groups will assemble at the

AIM (Paseo de Roxas) Parking lot at 3:00 PM.

Please join us.

Sa Totoo Tayo. Now Na!

Today there will be people from all walks of life and different generations and varying political and non-political persuasions, coming together to make a stand.

It’s unfortunate that the focus on Makati will obscure the efforts being made elsewhere in the country. Whether a rally in Cebu City, or elsewhere, the only divide I see is between urban and rural Filipinos: though the majority, for some time now, of Filipinos are urban dwellers. I strongly believe the sentiments among urban Filipinos are converging while rural opinion won’t be far behind.

Returning to today’s rally, the authorities are pulling out all the stops: PNP renews warning about communists, terrorists at rally. They’re spooked.Yesterday, something remarkable happened at PUP, see: PUP bomb threat fails to stop Lozada. And something else happened, see: Dirty Tricks in Uniffors.

But two bloggers say it best.

Market Manila declares he will be there:

Because we live in a democracy by choice. Because not speaking up when you know something is wrong makes you an accomplice to the wrong. Because I think everyone must be held accountable for their actions, particularly where their actions impact the welfare of millions. Because of the increasingly brazen disregard for the laws and even basic ethics that should apply to educated individuals. Because in many ways, I am embarrassed to be in the same gene pool as those who are perpetrating and then possibly getting away with such outrageous actions. Because of dozens of other reasons I will keep to myself as I know you get the point.

A reply he gives to a commenter is zeroes in on the issues even more:

mapster, I agree that we have to do everything we can everyday. I pay my taxes and a LOT of them. I have never ever slipped a policeman lunch money. I have voted with a conscience and watched at the polls. I have volunteered services for politicians or candidates which I thought rose above the rest, and I have never accepted any gifts, compensation or positions for the effort. So yes, I think we have to do our daily bit. But I also used to believe that we had a high corruption rate because we were poor… and that somehow the petty corruption of the streets and licenses, etc. were a function of poverty. But that is simply not true. The folks who are implicated in multi-billion scandals are well to do, and as someone above says, how much money do they need to live a decent and comfortable life? And the Hello garci scandal was offensive precisely because it suggests that the elections themselves are rigged, hence the votes of the people are ignored. At the very least, we have to indicate a great deal of displeasure and let everyone know they can’t get away with these kinds of behaviors.

As for being in the company of crooks and wannabees as some intimate above, I think in all democracies people from all walks of life will band together for similar causes, though they all may not look, sound, or be the same. While some of the folks who will be there at the rally this afternoon are opportunists and perhaps not folks I would normally look up to, many others could or should be every day folks who simply want to say, TAMA NA! And while I am not the biggest of Cory fans, I think she IS someone to look up to and her presence is only one of the minor reasons I would show up this afternoon.

I agree with other sentiments about changing the system et al. But I would agree more that we need to change the people on a massive scale with folks that really want to do the BEST for their country, a noble and difficult scenario, I concur.

As for others, you are definitely entitled to your opinion and free to choose what you will, can or want to do. With Marcos it took 20 years to reach the “boiling point.” In subsequent administrations the flare ups occurred with less time required. But at some point, when we all are personally so incensed or affected directly, you too will feel the need to do something.

If you re-read the post above, I would like to point out that I only said that I WOULD BE GOING. Not that I thought all of you should as well, that is obviously your choice.

Touched By An Angel says,

Though not a popular choice by our Catholic Bishops, I believe, GMA has to go. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has to go.

I truly believe that The President and her people have engaged in so much lying that they can no longer recognize the truth even if it stared them in the face. (PDI) As to the next step to take, I will take one step, one day at a time. I do not have the answers yet but in time, I will discern it. Our Filipinos will discern it. I will be there at the The Interfaith rally…

Among young people, there will be those, like on a red day who will be there, as will Tristan’s Mental Assylum ristan’s Mental Assylum and Jamel Ignes who is attending a rally for the first time! (for the religious, see melo touch). Other young people share their views, and efforts at discernment: a slice of wine.. and a shot of cake.. points out the dividing line and respects those who have decided to speak up against the President. There are others who are still uncertain, yet watchful, like Prudence and Mandess, and such as student Timmyland or who remain ambivalent, who will not go but who will be keeping those gathered in their thoughts, see OFW jihAn.zillA. Sh, and Yeweifang’s blog .

Among more senior bloggers, Red’s Herring puts everything in perspective:

If the events that have led to People Power I (EDSA Revolution of 1986 or EDSA I) are any guide, revolutionary uprisings go through certain levels (of consciousness): First, the underlying belief by a sizeable segment of society that the rulers and certain institutional arrangements have lost legitimacy; second, certain intense participants or change agents have gotten around their sense of powerlessness and come to realize they have the power or capacity to effect the needed changes; third, the disaffected members of society have more or less formed a consensus as to the nature and or scope of the changes they desire to occur in lieu of the illegitimated rulers or arrangements, whether be it about a total systemic overhaul, a “regime change,” an extra-constitutional overthrowing of a corrupt or immoral government, etc.

My sense is that People Power III has already reached the first and second levels of consciousness described above. However, before the Great Beast “could take care of itself” today it has yet to hurdle the third level of consciousness.

For one, I have noted even the reformists in the military and the progressives in the civil society are still tentative about the scope and the nature of the changes to be sought (note should also be taken for instance that the mere suggestion during the Manila Peninsula “uprising” that a military junta was being contemplated has not sit well with potential supporters), while other veteran people power practitioners are apprehensive the next exercise “could again end up repeating a vicious cycle of simply ‘moving on’ in circle, and not leaping onward or to a higher ground” or a “new qualitative state.”…

…Now, the question once again: Why is People Power III taking its time?

My own take is: There is yet no general consensus among potential people power participants and activists, as has been in EDSA I or EDSA II, as to what change to aspire for and institute.

Arguably, proposals for reforms or transformations, at odds with each other for the most part, still abound. To cite a few: some who believe the two EDSAs were both a failure aim this time to act against a failed system and plan to overhaul it either according to some rigid ideologies or based merely on the “best practices” of ongoing successful experiments; other groups are just angry and frustrated because of “relative deprivation” (middle class weighed upon with a looming downgrade to the next class complain how come only their counterparts in other regions are having all the fun); still others are focused only on struggling for control of the state apparatuses and effecting “regime change” while keeping both the political and economic structure intact; and specifically, accused coup leader and now detained senator Sonny Trillanes is eager to transform the nation “without reinventing the wheel” or whereas Bishop Francisco Claver can only entertain the belief that “our problem comes down to this: how to correct the aberration that is the present administration without destroying the stabilizing structure that is our democratic system of government.”

…As a result, reactionary moves from old and once reliable alliances, the CBCP in particular, are silently taking place in the form of tokenism (a plea to President Arroyo to take lead in the fight against corruption) and diversion (a call for a new brand of People Power through “communal action”).

Mon Casiple on the part of the political pundits, observes,

The nature and circumstances of this political crisis is such that it can only have one resolution: the end of the Arroyo regime within the context of the existing electoral democracy. From there, it may result in the affirmation of this electoral democracy and thus the integrity of the 2010 elections. Or, more remote, it may lead to the ending of the electoral democracy itself. At any rate, these are the days of reckoning.

The people’s consciousness and readiness to action are developing by leaps and bounds. The usual tactics by the GMA administration are not working anymore and proved to be ironically pushing faster the momentum for change. From the JDV triumphal ouster to its present travails, the Arroyo administration has rapidly traversed a half-circle towards a downward spiral.

What’s Casiple referring to? I can only guess, but think of this. Did you notice the article, 52 governors troop to Palace to show support for Arroyo ? A friend encountered one of these governors on a plane bound for Manila, and the governor prattled on about how he was going to Manila on business -only for my friend to see the governor on TV lurking near the edge of the gathered governors. Said my friend: you see, they’ve begun to get embarrassed over their support for the President (the governor knew my friend’s an oppositionist; but a mere month ago, the governor would needle my friend and crow about the President every chance he got). And the news leaves an even bigger question hanging: what of the other 29 governors?

Recall that one of the officials proclaimed a convenor of the Loyalist rally in Manila on Feb. 25 pointedly told the media, “oh, I’m in Manila doing shopping.”

While Amando Doronila notices that:

Speaking to a joint meeting of the Makati Business Club, Management Association of the Philippines and PinoyME Foundation last Feb. 26, Aquino did not make a pitch for another People Power uprising, to the disappointment of many people. She merely called on President Arroyo to step down, saying it was the least disruptive way out of the “severe moral crisis” facing the country. She said, “She must give way to a credible government that could lead by example. Given our concern to protect the moral pillars of democracy, the extra-constitutional removal of the President is not an ideal we would want to aspire for.”

Aquino’s call for restraint was echoed by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, which in a pastoral statement on Feb. 26, called on the President to allow her officials to tell the truth about the slew of allegations of corruption related to several government transactions, but fell short of demanding her resignation. Instead, the bishops urged the President to be “part of the effort” to seek the truth.

The coyness of Aquino and the disappointing position of the bishops restraining people power highlighted the departure from the dynamics of 1986, when Aquino rode the crest of a forceful people power movement driven by the activist archbishop of Manila, Jaime Cardinal Sin, and the mass civilian participation in street protests in support of the military mutiny led by Marcos’ Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and Constabulary chief, Lt. Gen. Fidel Ramos.

Today’s configuration has lost the fervor for mass action of 1986. It tells us that today’s movement is not based on mass action to bring pressure on the key support institutions of government to defect, such as the military and the bureaucracy. Today’s movement has changed emphasis. It has shifted its cutting edge from confrontation in the streets to bringing moral pressure on government. The shift is not exerting a powerful pressure on government officials to step down. It emboldens them to stonewall.

Though as the Inquirer editorial today points out,

We realize that, in itself, the language of the recommendation (“Urge the President and all the branches of government to take the lead in combating corruption wherever it is found”) seems to be neutral. But in the present context, it actually disregards a fundamental reality. In the scandal over the National Broadband Network, the President and her men have been less than forthright in telling the truth. That, in fact, is one of the reasons we have a crisis in the first place.

Apropos of the bishops, read An Open Letter to the CBCP at Brown SEO.

(courtesy of pedestrianobserver)

Today the Spratlys, tomorrow Palawan (updated)

Something interesting happened yesterday. Early in the afternoon, the Palace alerted media, saying it should cover the President’s speech in Mindanao, because she would announce the revocation of Executive Order 464. ANC dutifully started covering the speech.

Then it was interrupted by a live press conference at the Palace (see Jove Francisco’s account).

Speaking to reporters were Secretaries See No Evil, Hear No Evil, and Say No Evil, otherwise known as Favila, Ermita, and Mendoza. Favila told a touching tale of a befuddled President who left her (potentially dying) husband so that she could honor a request from Fidel V. Ramos to address the Asian equivalent of the Davos gabfest; she got a call, though, from her husband’s doctors and so, rushed home (the Chinese officials couldn’t speak English, Favila said, most undiplomatically, and so he had to converse with them through sign language). Ermita then did his usual folksy uncle schtick about his (not the President’s, mind you) setting up a committee to review E.O. 464. And Mendoza launched into his usual monologue about how utterly above-board the NBN-ZTE deal was. At a certain point, Palace admits Arroyo said ‘anomalya’ in radio interview: but only after the three cabinet members had their bluff called by reporters.

End result? Even if the President had announced she was revoking E.O. 464, it would have been drowned out by the live Palace press conference; but anyway, she didn’t, and the best anyone’s been able to gather is… She changed her mind.

Why?

Who knows. But let me hazard a guess. I think a power play took place, between the time the media was alerted to expect a presidential announcement, and the unscheduled Palace press conference.

I say this, because by some accounts, it’s happened before. The President’s plans to impose martial law were foiled by a rebellion of sorts on the part of her Secretary of National Defense, Avelino Cruz, Jr., with the tacit approval of the generals, in November, 2005 (See Philippine Commentary for details). In February, 2006, the President, never short of clever lawyers, had decided that if she declared a State of Emergency, she could wield martial law powers without defying the United States. This is why, as many people subsequently noticed, the President’s declaration of a State of Emergency was virtually a word-for-word copy of Marcos’s Proclamation of Martial Law in 1972.

And here enters the cabinet rebellion. Soon after the President made her announcement, some of her cabinet then appeared on TV to state that the proclamation authorized the President to wield considerable extraordinary powers; this was followed by Cruz and others appearing on TV to say that no, the President’s proclamation did not confer on her additional powers; at that instant the attempt to wield extraordinary powers was nipped in the bud.

I’m convinced something similar happened yesterday, but unlike Avelino Cruz, Jr. heading off martial law and then an effort for the President to assert extraordinary powers, this time around, Favila, Ermita, and Mendoza engineered the scuttling of the revocation of E.O. 464.

This is part and parcel of their efforts to counteract the President’s efforts to wriggle her way out of the NBN-ZTE mess by claiming that she knew, all along, that the deal was defective (somehow) and that it took her a long time to scrap the deal because she didn’t want to offend China. Had the President pursued that excuse, it would have left members of her cabinet exposed as liars and accomplices to the wrongdoing the President disowned.

So the President’s story was disowned, regardless of the reversal beggaring disbelief. So the President’s effort to pander to the bishops was scuttled, regardless if by doing so, it weakens the ability of the President’s bishop-allies to help her in the future: these cabinet members aren’t about to take a dive any more than they already have, for a President obviously prepared to feed them to the wolves.

Just a hunch. Meanwhile, enjoy this: Palace story on P.5M given to Lozada now on 3rd version.

My column for today is Today the Spratlys, tomorrow Palawan. I have been following the unfolding diplomatic tack taken by this administration for some time now. For a backgrounder, see my Inquirer Current entry titled “The China Card.” It traces my articles on the subject and other relevant readings about the ongoing positioning among the Great Powers in our region as well as ASEAN, collectively, and its member countries.

At a time of American indifference with regards to Southeast Asia, and uncertainty over American attitudes towards the present government, courting China has become a major diplomatic priority of the Palace: on a commercial basis, this is no different from any other country eager to partake of China’s booming economy. But in terms of security and natural resources, American ambivalence about ASEAN has fostered a sense of regional solidarity among member nations, in the hope that acting as a bloc, it can extract better concessions from China as well as resist Chinese pressure better.

Because of her unique political problems, the President has had no qualms about projecting China as a potential -and at times, actual- replacement for the United States as an ally and source of assistance. But the diplomatic gambit has had domestic repercussions, too: NBN-ZTE.

Lately, however, besides domestic problems, the President’s relying on the China Card has upset ASEAN, too. This was revealed in a Far Eastern Economic Review article, Manila’s Bungle in The South China Sea. In our own media, Ricky Carandang tackled the issue in The Correspondents, in a segment you can watch on YouTube. And the papers have picked it up, for example, Malaya’s Treason in dirty Chinese loans? Under Beijing gun, Gloria commits RP to Spratly deal.

In light of the above, something John Mangun wrote on April 25, 2005 in The Philippines and China: A Bad Match now makes perfect sense:

Malacañang refuses to accept and deal with the fact that China invaded, occupied, and stole Philippine territory in the South China Sea. The Spratleys may be worthless outcroppings or the gateway to boundless treasure. It does not matter. Those atolls and islands are Filipino property as much as the ground on which the President walks each day. China’s conduct and treatment of the Philippines shows their inconsistency and lack of honesty in their conduct of foreign relations.

To view China and Japan similarly in our economic relations is a disaster for the nation. Madame President, listen well: China is a business COMPETITOR; Japan is a buying CUSTOMER. Fifteen years ago, ninety percent of all Christmas ornaments and decorations sold in the United States were imported from the Philippines. Now that ninety percent comes from China. The same trend occurred with Philippine garments and shoes.

According to the FEER report, there are two agreements of significance. The first is “Agreement for Seismic Undertaking for Certain Areas in the South China Sea By and Between China National Offshore Oil Corporation and Philippine National Oil Company” signed on Sept. 1, 2004, and later superseded by a “Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking in the Agreement Area in the South China Sea,” signed on March 14, 2005. The agreements were kept hush-hush by the three governments, understandably so in the case of Socialist Vietnam and The People’s Republic of China, but not so in the case of the ostensibly democratic Philippines.

As the FEER report says,

…the details having leaked into research circles, the reasons for wanting to keep it under wraps are apparent: “Some would say it was a sell-out on the part of the Philippines,” says Mark Valencia, an independent expert on the South China Sea. The designated zone, a vast swathe of ocean off Palawan in the southern Philippines, thrusts into the Spratlys and abuts Malampaya, a Philippine producing gas field. About one-sixth of the entire area, closest to the Philippine coastline, is outside the claims by China and Vietnam. Says Mr. Valencia: “Presumably for higher political purposes, the Philippines agreed to these joint surveys that include parts of its legal continental shelf that China and Vietnam don’t even claim.”

Worse, by agreeing to joint surveying, Manila implicitly considers the Chinese and Vietnamese claims to have a legitimate basis, he says. In the case of Beijing, this has serious implications, since the broken, U-shaped line on Chinese maps, claiming almost the entire South China Sea on “historic” grounds, is nonsensical in international law. (Theoretically, Beijing might stake an alternative claim based on an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf from nearby islets that it claims, but they would be restricted by similar claims by rivals.) Manila’s support for the Chinese “historic claim,” however indirect, weakens the positions of fellow Asean members Malaysia and Brunei, whose claimed areas are partly within the Chinese U-shaped line. It is a stunning about-face by Manila, which kicked up an international fuss in 1995 when the Chinese moved onto the submerged Mischief Reef on the same underlying “historic claim” to the area.

The “higher political purpose” euphemistically mentioned suggests purely partisan interests: that of the administration, which has, up to now, never disclosed these agreements. The Palace can always counter that “nobody asked,” and I’m sure this will be a Palace defense in the coming days. It may even claim that the agreement is a state secret, and covered by Executive Privilege.

This must be challenged. Not wanting to tip our government’s hand in negotiating international agreements may be understandable, but once signed, agreements should be subject to official disclosure. Reading old volumes of the Official Gazette, a regular portion was the publication, by direction of the President of the Philippines, of international agreements signed by the Republic. An agreement with economic consequences, and which involves defying an existing ASEAN consensus, certainly requires full disclosure. While MeiZhongTai pointed out in 2005 that an agreement had been signed and that exploration for oil had commenced (briefly noted by Ben Muse also), but never trumpeted, for obvious reasons, by our government although it liked trumpeting virtually every other China-related deal at the time.

The reason of course is that the deal would have negative political repercussions at home, and the government was not about to broadcast to its own people that the Philippines went against an ASEAN consensus.

I can think of many ways the administration will get stuck in another mess of its own making on this one.

Why?

Read Ricky Carandang’s entry, Treason:

Aside from angering our neighbors and potentially undermining regional stability, Arroyo’s action may also be illegal. Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez–who was then acting justice secretary–told former Senator Frank Drilon, who was then allied with the administration, that she believed that the deal violated the constitution, because while it was a deal between the state owned oil firms (PNOC of the Philippines and CNOOC of China) of the two countries, it implicitly gave China access to our oil reserves. Officers of the Foreign Affairs Department were also upset because the deal effectively strengthened China and Vietnam’s claim to the Spratlys.

What would compel Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to sign a deal that potentially undermines regional stability, possibly grants China parity rights to oil reserves in the Spratlys that we claim to be ours, and likely violates our constitution?

How about $2 billion a year? After the Spratly deal was signed, the Chinese government committed $2 billion in official development assistance a year to the Philippines until 2010, when Arroyo is supposed to step down from office. My sources tell me that the Spratly deal was an explicit precondition to the loans.

A sizable amount to be sure, but for the Arroyo administration the China loans are particularly appealing. Not so much because the interest rates are so low and the repayment terms so lenient, but because Chinese loans do not have the cumbersome requirements that loans from the US, Japan, the EU, and big multilateral lenders have. Requirements for documentation, bidding, transparency and other details that make it very difficult for corrupt public officials to commit graft. In fact, in November of last year, those cumbersome requirements made it impossible for some government officials and private individuals with sticky fingers to avail themselves of the World Bank’s generosity.

It had gotten to the point where a corrupt government could no longer make a dishonest buck. That is until China’s generous offer came along.

My column, of course begins and ends with a jab at the bishops. An account of how the bishops voted: Mindanao bishops ‘saved’ Arroyo. Noteworthy tidbit, concerning another portion of my column, on E.O. 464, is this:

In seeking the abolition of EO 464, Cagayan de Oro Bishop Antonio Ledesma said the bishops also wanted the Palace to waive executive privilege “in the spirit of truth and accountability.”

Although it was not expressly stated, Ledesma said a waiver on executive privilege “is the essence of the recommendation.”

Iniguez, one of Arroyo’s more vocal critics in the CBCP, echoed Ledesma’s position. Thus, the CBCP reached a consensus on asking President Arroyo to revoke EO 464 in order not to stifle congressional investigations on anomalies in government.

But Oliveros said the CBCP stopped short of categorically asking the President to give up executive privilege since this is a right vested to the Office of the President.

“We are not trying to protect the President but the Office she represents,” he said.

***

Update 10:47 PM:

Newsbreak emailed me to point out they’d published a report in 2006, unfortunately, it’s only available online at the Geological Society of the Philippines Yahoo Group.

What is available at Newsbreak’s site is the full text of the Agreement Between the PNOC and the China National Offshore Oil Corporation.

I’ve been apprised that June 2009 is some sort of deadline for the passage of a law on identifying our territorial baseline, and so agreements like this take on a greater significance. If anyone has information on why this deadline exists, and on what basis, I’d appreciate it

***

On China, additional relevant readings are Parag Khanna’s provocative Waving Goodbye to Hegemony:

Without firing a shot, China is doing on its southern and western peripheries what Europe is achieving to its east and south. Aided by a 35 million-strong ethnic Chinese diaspora well placed around East Asia’s rising economies, a Greater Chinese Co-Prosperity Sphere has emerged. Like Europeans, Asians are insulating themselves from America’s economic uncertainties. Under Japanese sponsorship, they plan to launch their own regional monetary fund, while China has slashed tariffs and increased loans to its Southeast Asian neighbors. Trade within the India-Japan-Australia triangle — of which China sits at the center — has surpassed trade across the Pacific.

At the same time, a set of Asian security and diplomatic institutions is being built from the inside out, resulting in America’s grip on the Pacific Rim being loosened one finger at a time. From Thailand to Indonesia to Korea, no country — friend of America’s or not — wants political tension to upset economic growth. To the Western eye, it is a bizarre phenomenon: small Asian nation-states should be balancing against the rising China, but increasingly they rally toward it out of Asian cultural pride and an understanding of the historical-cultural reality of Chinese dominance. And in the former Soviet Central Asian countries — the so-called Stans — China is the new heavyweight player, its manifest destiny pushing its Han pioneers westward while pulling defunct microstates like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, as well as oil-rich Kazakhstan, into its orbit. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization gathers these Central Asian strongmen together with China and Russia and may eventually become the “NATO of the East.”

(I don’t know if the “rallying to China out of Asian cultural pride” is exactly accurate; at least for ASEAN, since the 1990s there have been efforts at strengthening the regional bloc at the very least, to try to prevent individual member countries being intimidated by China; but American indifference has left the region no alternative but to cozy up to China):

This applies most profoundly in China’s own backyard, Southeast Asia. Some of the most dynamic countries in the region Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam are playing the superpower suitor game with admirable savvy. Chinese migrants have long pulled the strings in the region’s economies even while governments sealed defense agreements with the U.S. Today, Malaysia and Thailand still perform joint military exercises with America but also buy weapons from, and have defense treaties with, China, including the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation by which Asian nations have pledged nonaggression against one another. (Indonesia, a crucial American ally during the cold war, has also been forming defense ties with China.) As one senior Malaysian diplomat put it to me, without a hint of jest, “Creating a community is easy among the yellow and the brown but not the white.” Tellingly, it is Vietnam, because of its violent histories with the U.S. and China, which is most eager to accept American defense contracts (and a new Intel microchip plant) to maintain its strategic balance. Vietnam, like most of the second world, doesn’t want to fall into any one superpower’s sphere of influence.

Also, see the entry of Steve Clemmons on Khanna’s article in his blog, The Washington Note: for an American’s view on the Khanna article.

And see Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism by Jerry Z. Muller in Foreign Affairs.

Also, while reproduced in one of my responses below, let me add, here, the relevant provision of our Constitution:

Article XII

National Economy and Patrimony

Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged.

Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.

The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.

The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish- workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.

The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources.

And on a final note, more charges, filed against a President who knew her father when he was President: Salonga files plunder case against GMA.

In the blogosphere, an entry related to my previous one, on the Mandate of Heaven: Taoist lessons from Akomismo II. And sad but very, very true reading in Brown SEO.

Thank you, bishops

Yesterday Senators Enrile and Arroyo tag-teamed to try to shut down the Senate hearings and one can assume they did so, to prevent the emergence of new witnesses. They failed. And so, New witness tags Arroyo couple in NBN mess. See also ZTE advanced $41M to ‘greedy group’–witness: ‘Chinese, Filipino groups to half $200M overprice’ ‘The worms just keep wriggling out of the can. See Ellen Tordesillas for additional background. I do think this is an extremely valid point: New witness in NBN probe ‘too relaxed,’ says Pangilinan: He might be a ‘Trojan Horse’.

One can assume that it is the public pressure of the hearings that leads to the leaking of documents, such as ‘Copy for FG’ is marginal note on NBN document. It’s well to remember that those grousing over the “lack” of evidence deliberately overlook how the Palace clamped down on producing documents, for obvious reasons.

As Manuel Buencamino does, so will people continue doing: asking questions to which the official answers don’t make sense.

Last night, after an emergency meeting, the Catholic hierarchy released a pastoral exhortation, ‘Seeking the Truth, Restoring Integrity’ with six main recommendations:

1. Condemn the continuing culture of corruption from the top to the bottom of our social and political ladder;

2. Urge the President and all the branches of government to take the lead in combating corruption wherever it is found;

3. Recommend the abolition of EO 464 so that those who might have knowledge of any corruption in branches of government, may be free to testify before the appropriate investigating bodies;

4. Ask the President to allow her subordinates to reveal any corrupt acts, particularly about the ZTE-NBN deal, without being obstructed in their testimony no matter who is involved;

5. Appeal to our senators and the ombudsman to use their distinct and different powers of inquiry into alleged corruption cases not for their own interests but for the common good;

6. Call on media to be a positive resource of seeking the truth and combating corruption by objective reporting without bias and partiality, selective and tendentious reporting of facts.

It’s enough to make AlterNation101 happy because it rebukes the media (does that include government media?). While bloggers like Spank Me! and at wit’s end are furious, and Palace hails CBCP for ‘not succumbing to propaganda’ others, like Bobbie Reyes say the demand to revoke Executive Order 464 is “an extremely powerful statement.” barefoot calls it a wise tactical move. I have to heartily agree with Lunasandwich who points out,

While for sure the defenders of greed and corruption will be quick to use the bishop’s statement as leverage, people should still resist the urge to label the bishops as in cohorts with the enemy. People who believe that GMA must go should not be disheartened. Maybe this time there would be much more meaning when it is the people who convince the Church’s leadership when it is time for evil leaders to go than vice-versa.

People seem to be coming to a decision on their own, anyway.

In his blog, Mon Casiple seems to agree, too:

However, there is a tilt in the balance as it categorically called for the abolition of EO 464 so that “those who might have knowledge of any corruption in branches of government may be free to testify before the appropriate investigating bodies.” The CBCP asked President Arroyo to allow her subordinates to reveal any corrupt acts, particularly on the $329.48-million ZTE NBN deal without being obstructed in their testimony, “no matter who is involved.”

The thematic unity of the CBCP revolved around the search for truth–a formula that basically puts the onus for finding it on the broad opposition. In including President Macapagal-Arroyo as participant in the search for truth, the CBCP basically satisfied the bishops friendly to her. At the same time, it also opened the door for more testimony thereby satisfying those bishops who already made up their mind on the guilt of the President.

The CBCP put itself as the cart after the horse and sidestepped its possible moral leadership on the matter of addressing the key action of calling for GMA resignation. This sends the message that it will only act decisively when the people themselves–on their own–acted decisively towards this end.

There are other nuances to Casiple’s analysis, but on the open-ended demand being significant, I also agree (note: demand, not an ultimatum because, well, essentially the bishops give the President until Kingdom Come to comply: hence the Palace’s breezy “this deserves very serious consideration,” and Scrapping EO 464 requires ‘careful study’–DoJ chief, which is officialese for “wham bang thank you, bishops”) . See Jove Francisco for the Palace’s activities: none of them involving anything the bishops suggested.

It satisfies the Jesuit conditions that things should not escalate until all the i’s have been dotted and all the t’s are crossed. By all means, do so. I am confident this proposal will go the way of that other Jesuit brainchild, the Truth Commission that bamboozled the Solita Monsods of this world into giving the President a free pass in 2005. So they’ve done it again, may their tribe increase. I’ve mentioned before that we have to consider that the real fight may only begin in 2010 when the President’s collaborators run out of rationalizations.

As Tony Abaya puts it,

Edsa 1 can be said to have taken two years and six months – Aug. 21, 1983 to Feb. 25, 1986 – to reach flashpoint of sufficient heat and energy to force Marcos and his family out of Malacanang.

If the putative Edsa 3 (or 4) were to be superimposed on this timeline, and the trigger were the revelations of Jun Lozada on Feb. 5, 2008, flashpoint would not be reached until about August 2010…

By August 2010, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would be on her first months as prime minister or as president on a third term, the Constitution having been amended in 2009 to enable her to remain in power legally and constitutionally beyond June 30, 2010, by the Kampi-Lakas dominated Congress, as is the ill-disguised aim of the ChaCha Road Show inaugurated last Feb. 12 by Albay Gov. Joey “Bitch” Salceda.

Using EO 464 as one more bridge to cross, is fine with me for that reason.

Can the President dispense with Executive Order 464? Only if:

1. She replaces it with another executive issuance that has the same effect as EO 464, or;

2. She puts the squeeze on executive officials to lie, and destroys documents that everyone knows exists.

Method 1 is what Marcos adopted with his infamous Amendment 6 to the Constitution which rendered meaningless his lifting of martial law in 1981. I’m sure some legal sleuthing in the Administrative Code and other places might dig up useful pretexts to block Senate subpoenas.

But method 2 is the easier thing to do, However, in the long run, the least effective because too much has already been said and too many trails lead straight back to her.

Easiest of all, of course, is not to budge on E.O. 464 and keep applying it, saying there are pending cases in the Supreme Court, that it requires proper study, that a special committee has been appointed to look into it and that in the fullness of time it will issue non-binding recommendations for further discussion…

Or, the President could revoke it and throw caution to the winds in which case the bishops could honestly claim paternity for a full-blown miracle.

But what has been happening is that the Catholic bishops and the moderate critics of the President as well as the collaborators, have all come to focus on E.O. 464 as the first line of the President’s defense.

And a means for piercing that defense is actively proposed by today’s Inquirer editorial, Strike for the truth: a nationwide stay-home strike (the editorial responded to this particular about-face by the Palace: Arroyo on ‘flawed’ NBN deal ‘lost in translation’–Palace). No one can say a strike is incompatible with democracy, the Constitution or the so-called government “rule of law.”

Proposing a day to stay home instead of going into the streets should be vigorously discussed (see Amando Doronila’s Arroyo’s work ethic and the Mafia for some particulars on how businessmen are tackling the question of economic costs); to ignore the proposal merely limits the already narrowing options available to the public.

Returning to the CBCP Statement, bear in mind it’s the product of a collegial body and that the immediate objective of the leading bishops was to forge a united stand. The pastoral exhortation was at least, approved unanimously. No one can complain. It may also represent the last service Archbishops Capalla and Talamayan, the President’s point men within the hierarchy, can provide the President.

So, sorry to disappoint Philippine Commentary, but I’m happy with the statement. It can only help tighten the noose and it can only further clarify the battle lines.

In the blogosphere, smoke takes a nihilist look at ongoing events, an antidote, I suppose, to the passion of Etcetera, Etcetera (heartily applauded by Manila Bay Watch). love hurts… but sometimes it’s a good hurt… and it feels like i’m alive… has some photos: see Blog@AWBHoldings.com for Cory Aquino’s speech. Philippine Politics 04 responds to a mother’s concerns over rallies.

As always, Mabini’s prayer continues to resound down the ages:

To sum it up, the Revolution failed because it was badly led; because its leader won his post by reprehensible rather than meritorious acts; because instead of supporting the men most useful to the people, he made them useless out of jealousy. Identifying the aggrandizement of the people with his own, he judged the worth of men not by their ability, character and patriotism but rather by their degree of friendship and kinship with him; and anxious to secure the readiness of his favorites to sacrifice themselves for him, he was tolerant even of their transgressions. Because he thus neglected the people forsook him; and forsaken by the people, he was bound to fall like a waxen idol melting in the heat of adversity. God grant we do not forget such a terrible lesson, learnt at the cost of untold suffering.

This is a cool bit o’ video: How cops come up with crowd estimates.

Belinda in Space

Monday’s Mass at Baclaran (where the Comelec encoders had sought refuge after walking out of the canvassing of votes in the PICC) pictures, where people from all walks of life came together to recall Edsa I:

Approach to the Church; banner at the front of the Church

Church begins to fill up; reminder behind pulpit, placed by Redemptorists

Amb. Howard Dee and friends; media takes up its stations

Church fills up; preliminary security sweep

overflow crowd; FPJ’s daughter

FPJ’s daughter; Boy Blue arrives

Cory and Lozada arrive

Mass begins; processional

Processional; clergy before the Altar

Gospel; Cory lights Truth Candle

Cory; Offertory led by lead convenors of BnW and leaders of Ang Kapatiran

Two gentlemen in white T-Shirts are the Ang Kapatiran leaders; after mass, “Bayan Ko”

“Bayan Ko”

“Bayan Ko”

“Bayan Ko”

“Bayan Ko”

Cory’s remarks

After Cory, Jun Lozada’s remarks

Jun Lozada

I recently read an article (in a book) by a foreign correspondent who observed that one of the President’s problems is that she engages in fights she cannot win (e.g. after Estrada’s macho posturing, she tried to be “Ina ng Bayan”). I was reminded of this by a couple of things in Jove Francisco’s latest blog entry. First, there’s the scene of the Loyalty Rally organized by the President’s sons in the Liwasang Bonifacio yesterday :

And let us not forget that her allies conducted their own noisy (festive) rally at the Liwasang Bonifacio. She wasn’t there, but her allies from the lower chamber were seen having lunch (or were assembling themselves) at the Macapagal Blvd restaurant of her son, Rep. Mikee Arroyo (reportedly his)… before going to the Liwasan. And as if that’s not enough, the 100 or so congressmen even trooped to Malacanang shortly before seven in the evening for some chit chat with PGMA. While there, some congressmen, led by House speaker Propsero Nograles continued to lambaste the president’s enemies, like JDV (he called on PGAM to resign), Senate president Manuel Villar (the impeachment quote) and yes, even Erap (for being Erap).

Yup, the president just wanted herself shielded from politics on this people power holiday. But as we’ve seen, she actually surrounded herself with politics today.

(Inicidentally, Pressure Points wasn’t amused by Dato Arroyo’s quoted remarks) And then, here’s Jove’s account of how the President tried to summon up one of the last remaining viable counter-arguments of her administration: that, somehow, Filipinos outside of Metro Manila have different values and that she continues to represent them. So the President, yesterday, went to Cavite. Was it a spontaneous or pre-prepared visit? Jove recounts,

Based on the number of passenger jeepneys (I saw more than 20) and buses (about a handful) that occupied a vast lot beside the provincial capitol of Cavite…one can say that the Cavitenos really “came in droves to pour out their support to PGMA”

The sight of those vehicles parked in that lot was in a word: overwhelming. It was like seeing a vast field where a flock of tamaraws rest. Rolling steel moving around, causing the dust to envelope the area. Pero sige lang ang lakad ng mga tao na naka color coded attire at may dalang lobo sa isang kamay nila. From afar they seem quite happy and excited about being there.

My team waited for the folks who rode the said vehicles near the entrance of the event area. PGMA has yet to arrive so may time kami mag-“man on the street” interview. Pasalubong ang direction namin, eager to talk to some of them.

Turns out… some of the people who trooped to the event were clueless about why they were asked to be there, in the first place.
You have to watch the clip to listen to some of them.

After about talking to a handful of people, and getting the same answer (Hindi kami andito para kay Gloria, Hindi ko alam na para sa kaniya ito, Di ko alam bakit kami pinapunta dito etc etc) I told my crew (Armand and Luther) “Pano ba ito? Bakit wala tayong makuha na supportive sa admin, baka masabihan tayo na hindi fair.” So we tried interviewing some more, but we got the same soundbytes. (Hence, during the final edit, I asked my VTR editor to include the pro PGMA banners, placards plus the shouting of real fans of PGMA (they were seated in front) in my report. Para fair.
Cavite leaders admit… they were the ones who mobilized their kababayans so they’ll attend the rally and so that they can show Mrs Arroyo that the feelings in Metro Manila doesn’t necessarily reflect the sentiments of those in the provinces.

PGMA arrived via chopper. Then she motored to the provincial capitol.

Some residents may not be aware that the event is for PGMA…but as soon as the guest of honor arrived, they still gave her welcome fit for a VIP.
Strangely… the palace disclosed that the president will just GATE CRASH the event. In fairness, she didn’t have a teleprompter with her on stage and we saw her organize her thoughts/speech kodigos in between listening to the “small talk” of her seatmates on stage and listening to the seemingly endless profession of support by “almost everyone who mattered in Cavite”. (They were under a tent, the people were not, the reporters were not. It was one warm day, napakataas pa ng araw. Nagdusa kami lahat.)

But at the start of her supposedly “impromptu” speech, the president had a slip of the tongue. Nasabi niya na INIMBITAHAN siya ni Governor Maliksi, pero ooops, di pala siya invited, wala silang kinalaman sa rally na iyon, nag gate crash lang daw sya. Okay then.

When life gives you flags that can’t be raised and potentially lethal clumps of confetti, as well as today’s Inquirer editorial, At least you have that noble prelate, Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales who will surely come in handy in that episcopal gabfest today. And there’s the return of the President’s husband to be thankful for, well, hey, hey, the gang’s.. and there’s always Bel Cunanan.

So Bel Cunanan presents the party line, as is well her right and indeed, her duty at a time like this. But something was in the Cool-Aid when she wrote,

Some schools are also reported to be planning to join Friday’s rally and will bus their students rain or shine. This has drawn protests from many parents who don’t want their children to be used and involved in the politics of hatred. So concerned have some parents become that they have set up two blog spots where other parents can air their sentiments: www.pulitikangpinoy.blogspot.com and www.8sallpolitics.blogspot.com. Anonymous bloggers are welcome.

Anonymous bloggers, huh? Commenters, I guess she means…

To be sure there are parents who feel worried, but really, can someone say someone was so concerned they set up a blogspot to air sentiments, when one of the blogs was set up in 2005, has entries for only two months, entirely about Constitutional issues. See Pilipinas: Pinoy, Buhay at Pulitika. Here’s a screenshot, as of 1:12 AM February 26, 2008:

I mean, is it just me, or isn’t “So concerned have some parents become that they have set up two blog spots” supposed to mean they’re fresh, spankin’ new blogs, for a cause? Seems like a relict of the “Our Name is Legion for We Are Many” Days.

he other blog, It’s All Politics…. (u know…) however, fits the bill, having been set up this month. It’s a great read. With such kid-friendly gems as this entry for February 23:

The continued manipulation of public opinion is so outrageous to the point of hideousness. One of these days, history will catch up with all of you, heroes and traitors alike.

Then we’ll bury you all deep in goat shit.

Continuing on that (goat) theme, there’s the entry for February 24:

Overpriced goats, reckless dispersal of public lands to relatives and friends, kickbacks from previous government projects he had been involved with, and more… all these have slowly eroded Lozada’s credibility. But the most damning thing he ever did was to dance to the tune of his new marching band(his patrons)…and go around schools convincing kids (as young as pre-schoolers) to support an uprising against the government. Such blatant manipulation reeks of goat-shit. Unable to convince the masses to join them in renewed bid to grab political power, the political opposition (a friend calls them the disgruntled opposition) are trying to mobilize the youth by USING the religious sector and the media and just about everybody else who dares falls into the trap of their Jun Lozada script.

I agree that it is the duty of every citizen to be concerned with the affairs of government but we must NEVER fall into the trap set by politicians who have shown no qualms of using public opinion in the furtherance their selfish ends. The danger of Jun Lozada is not in the exposure of seemingly unbridled corruption in government: It is in manipulating the political power of the people and abusing popular will in order to serve self-serving interests.

Enlisting kids to join in subverting authority is one example.

This we cannot allow.

Leave it to the alumni, I guess? Those less interested in goat-poop can, instrad, go on explaining ,as Filomeno Sta. Ana III does, what The Fight for our Children’s Future is about.
Meanwhile, I’m hoping Bel familiarizes herself more with space. Cyberspace.
Now this extract from Space Bel’s column will, I’m sure, get someone’s goat:

There’s inaccuracy regarding the ZTE document signed in Boao, China, last April, and peddling it shows the opposition’s intellectual dishonesty. President Arroyo went to Boao mainly to deliver a speech before the biannual gathering of international leaders there. Afterwards she planned to spend a week in China, but First Gentleman Mike Arroyo’s condition forced her to cut her visit to only 12 hours. Before flying back, Ms Arroyo witnessed the signing of several agreements by various government officials, among them the ZTE deal.

What was signed, however, was not a contract, but only a memorandum of understanding on a supply contract, which is only Step No. 3 in a 17-step process that includes multi-department reviews. The Department of Finance late last year circulated an enlightening graph showing this long process. The many steps could be the reason the cancellation of the deal took five months. But this graph was ignored by the media, which chose instead to strengthen the perception that the ZTE “contract” was consummated at Boao.

I leave it to Uniffors, though, to chew on in. If anyone can get her goat, that blogger will. Perhaps Bel has no diplomatic experience and so needs to be informed what it means when a head of state witnesses the signing of any sort of official document.
And so, the debate on what to do, what not to do (or simply, to be left alone, as A Simple Life prefers), or perhaps whether what should be done is worth it it all, continue. Pinoy Potter’s Chronicles is filled with misgivings at the scale of the problem. And yes, ambivalence about People Power, see The Warrior Lawyer.
He’s not a blogger but Juan Mercado’s Fond illusion looks at the same problem, too:

The crisis, meanwhile, dismantles unnoticed one of our fondest illusions: that before midnight, someone on a white charger, will dash in to banish enemies. They’d rebuild plundered institutions while we slump back to business-as-usual.

This ZTE scam instead tells us: Look beyond discredited pretenders to ordinary people. Leadership is not an office. It is life lived and, in the on-going process, brings change. Academics, parents, students and barangay officials seeking truth will usher in tomorrow. They continue to do that with Governor “Among Ed” Panlilio in Pampanga province. People Power is a weapon of last resort. A stray “hinge factor” may yet see that unsheathed.

“Much of what is new and innovative is not initiated by governments,” Indonesian thinker Soedjatmoko wrote. “Their source is ‘movements from below’: expressions by ordinary people of their aspirations for a decent, secure and equitable way of life.”

Or, as big mango asks, should we aspire for a continuing revolution?
As John Nery points out, what people overlook is that a People Power moment just materializes, though it’s the tug-of-war over public opinion that creates a situation in which People Power can manifest itself. Two years ago I quoted Teodoro L. Locsin Jr.’s dismissive remark on the first impeachment effort, that the opposition was “trying to manufacture a People Power moment,” and agreed with him; there is a more conscious appreciation of the need not to force things forward but trust the Fates to let them unfold in their own good time (which is why those who argue the recent gatherings are an effort to force that moment, are completely wrong).
Returning to Neri:

I think it is fair to say that, for many who are now outraged by the abuse of power and immoderate greed revealed by the ZTE-NBN scandal, the analogy for today’s crisis is that turbulent 100-day period between October 2000 and January 2001. If true, then taking to the streets should quickly lead to a decisive People Power moment.

But it is also possible that the real analogy goes farther back in time. The highly esteemed Torn and Frayed blog, for instance, posits the idea that Lozada is today’s Perfecto Yasay — the Securities and Exchange Commission chairman who dueled with Estrada a year before Singson saw the light (the headlight, that is, of an unfriendly police vehicle). We should remember that the road to EDSA People Power II wound through Ayala Avenue too; in August 1999, over 100,000 people thronged the famous intersection to denounce Estrada’s attacks on press freedom.

I think the real analogy may be to that even more turbulent 1,000-day period between the Ninoy Aquino assassination and EDSA People Power I. We took to the streets almost every week then, driven by the need to confront the evil in the system, but acutely aware that the dictator’s fake-hero persona would not allow him to cede control peacefully. People Power as we know it now was not even a dream then.

So, yes, we should take to the streets; we should repair to our churches; we should fill the public square. But we should let People Power take care of itself.

Meanwhile, it’s up to the citizenry to figure out their personal level of engagement, and define what their participation ought to look like, as caffeine_sparks suggests. Blogger-citizens like Don’t F**k with a Ninja!! are under the impression that political questions require “proof” beyond reasonable doubt. This has never been the case whether for impeachment or elections, a moral certainty is what’s required, precisely because proof beyond reasonable doubt is what’s required for a criminal conviction; in political matters what suffices is simply a preponderance of evidence (as in civil cases). Does it exist? c0nfoUnd aMbigUity seems to think so.
What interests me though are those who support the President because they are uneasy about the Vice-President. But the President hand-picked de Castro to be her vice-presidential candidate; he was her choice, and she knows as well as anyone else that a veep is literally a heartbeat away from the presidency, it’s happened three times to us. Therefore, in her mind, the person best qualified to succeed her should the unthinkable ever happen, is the Vice-President. So you trust her wisdom, then you must accept her choice. If you didn’t accept her choice, you should’ve voted for someone else for veep (for this reason, I voted to Hermie Aquino in 2004).

signs of life has no qualms about standing up and being counted at the present time. Pedestrian Observer links to ongoing on-line efforts.

An immoderate threat when representatives fail the people

Yesterday, the Inquirer editorial asked if People Power represents An immoderate threat in the face of unmoderated greed. Besides Fidel V. Ramos’s stinging rebuke to the President last Friday, on Saturday, GMA News broke the following story: Arroyo: I know ZTE contract tainted but can’t cancel deal (see also Arroyo admits NBN deal was flawed ), which has raised more questions than it’s answered: not least, because in one fell swoop, the President’s own statement proves her officials have been lying all along.

The question remains whether it will temper the “reply or resign” call made by people like Martin Bautista. In her blog, smoke makes a decision flow chart and, well, the best that could be said was a negligent President (but maybe enough to keep the loyalists stouthearted).

Atty. Edwin Lacierda, in an email to me, put it this way:

The difference I think between the Garci tapes and the ZTE confession is that in the Garci tapes, there was this legal grey area of the admissibility of the wiretapped tapes. And so, GMA could legally wiggle out of it even if we know that the accent and inflections were distinctly GMA. In the ZTE deal however, her admission opens up more cans of worms.

In the first place, she lied as to when she knew of the irregularities. I think the first documentary proof of her knowledge of the irregularity would have been when NEDA changed the investments that could avail of the loans from the People’s Republic [of China] when the [military] housing units and the Angat water project were removed from the list and the NBN deal was inserted. I may be wrong but [isn’t it that the] President [alone] can change the Neda policy.

Orally, the testimony of Romy Neri informing the president that Abalos offered him a Php200 million bribe would also constitute knowledge of wrongdoing. Inspite of that information, the president told Neri to approve the project. So, I think we know she lied when she admitted she knew of wrongdoing only on the eve.

But be that as it may, her admission runs counter to the many pronouncements of those who defended the ZTE deal, as pointed out in the Inquirer editorial. Laglagan na is the order of the day just to save the president. I dont know how long will the factotums continue to defend her at the risk to their own life and liberty. But this strategy will have unintended consequences and I am not sure the president’s men thought this out well. It started out with releasing the Jun-Joey conversations in YouTube. We dont know what Abalos is thinking but I am sure he was not pleased with the revelation. His credibility has been further eroded, if there is any ounce of credibility left in that man.

Her admission also puts into question the statements of Formoso who the government has constantly paraded as the point man in the ZTE deal. I would love to see him wiggle his way out of this mess.

The lies and the cover-up continue and it is getting harder and harder to put out a credible yarn.

And so, as Mon Casiple points out, it’s a case of the fortress showing cracks in its walls even as the administration recycling its old scripts:

Within the Malacañang fortress, there are rumors of the heightening suspicions among the key players–with the First Couple directly handling all tactical decisions, trusting no one. Whispers of last-ditch plans for a “palace coup” keep on leaking out as well as the opening of succession negotiations with the vice-president. The FG unscheduled trip to Hongkong is being interpreted as either a cover-up for a major palace counter-offensive this week or the preparation for the GMA exile to Spain.

GMA’s admission of knowing the ZTE-NBN contract problems is reminiscent of her famous “I’m sorry” speech. It may have been directed to the bishops but it only added more fuel to the fire of disenchantment with her regime. It may be the last argument to convince the fence-sitters.

The President’s people accelerated something most people didn’t want to think about, just yet: the post-Arroyo maneuvering that most people continued hoping would take place, as scheduled in 2010. Now the maneuvering has taken on greater urgency as the President’s own people have bungled things so badly. The scandal just keeps getting wider and wider and people have started to think the previously unthinkable.

And so, my column for today is When our representatives fail. It makes reference to some of my past pieces, including my Manifesto on the Tapes, and my columns,Redemption and ‘Half a People Power’. Also, it’s a response to Solita Monsod’s People Power IV? No, thank you! and, in a way, Randy David’s Bonfire of institutions (which reminded me of my column, Scorched-earth governance from 2005):

The damage to government institutions has been the most extensive. Far from being a neutral arbiter of disputes and a source of normative stability, the justice system has become a weapon to intimidate those who stand up to power. Far from being a pillar of public security, the military and the police have become the private army of a gangster regime. Instead of serving as an objective referee in electoral contests, the Commission on Elections has become a haven for fixers who deliver fictitious votes to the moneyed and the powerful. Instead of serving as the steady backbone of public service through successive changes in administration, the government bureaucracy has been turned into a halfway house for political lackeys, misfits and the corrupt. Instead of serving as a check on presidential power, the House of Representatives has become its hired cheering squad.

The erosion of these institutions, no doubt, has been going on for a long time. But their destruction in the last seven years under Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s presidency has been the most comprehensive since 1986. This is due not only to the particular gifts of Ms Arroyo as a politician — her survival instincts, her callousness, her readiness to set aside higher goals and principles for short-term personal gains. It is also due to the peculiar confluence of events that attended her rise to the presidency…

…But the damage is not confined to government; it has fanned out like a shock wave from the epicenter to the periphery. We have thus far only seen the debris of government institutions that have lost their standing in the public esteem. Now we are seeing how the tension is passed on and threatens other institutions. This happens when issues that are left unresolved by the institutions of law, politics and government spill over to other spheres of society.

The tremor spreads out and tests the strength of the remaining credible pillars of our society: the churches, the media, the universities, the business community, the family. Each one of these institutional spheres has their own unique operational system, code and medium. They are not organized, nor are they suited, for the processing of legal and political questions. Yet, they are compelled by the developing situation to address these questions from their own specific standpoints. Their members are called upon to lend their minds, their voices, and their bodies to a movement whose trajectory is still uncertain.

It is this uncertainty that needs to be addressed. And so, returning to today’s column, I’d like to start by reproducing, in full, the reflection by Bishop Francisco Claver, S.J. that I quoted in my column (sent to me by Billy Esposo):

An Infinite Series of EDSAs
(Ramblings of a retired bishop)
Is it possible to avoid firming up an extremely dangerous, if still inchoate, tradition?

EDSA I was about restoring a system which had been destroyed by the introduction of a dictatorial system of governance. That is why most of us bishops had no qualms about taking part in putting an end to President Marcos’ stolen power.

EDSA II was the momentary failure of the restored system—it carried a sense of desperation that the system wasn’t working as it should. (The dancing lady senator was a perfect metaphor of its dysfunctional operation.) The Supreme Court’s act in confirming GMA, for all its disputed constitutionality, was basically aimed at stabilizing a dangerous situation?

EDSA III, if it happens, promises to be the institutionalization of an infinite series of EDSAs. This is what is scary about the present situation and I’m wondering if a vague fear of it is behind the apparent unconcern of most of our people today about all the agitation to come up with yet another EDSA rebellion.

_______________________________________________

Is the question a “purely” political one? Or precisely because the danger is there that, with another EDSA ousting of an incumbent President, we help firm up a tradition of unstable governments, the question becomes a deeply moral one?

For bishops in regard to this development: Is it a moral duty incumbent on them to see to it that we do not go the way of institutionalized instability? Or at least to speak on the problem and show how we must be aware of the possibly deleterious implications of whatever option we make in the solution people give it? As one of Philippine society’s basic institutions, is the Church being called today to be the—or at least a—stabilizing force in our society?

In a very true sense then, our problem comes down to this: how to correct the aberration that is the present administration without destroying the stabilizing structure that is our democratic system of government? We keep the structure but correct the aberration? But if the correcting destroys the structure—or weakens it immensely—what then?
People power was born to bring back stability. I think it should be used now to protect it, not to destroy or weaken it. The way things are now, it is being invoked again in the effort to correct what I called above an aberration, but I’m afraid its repetition in the present crisis will only lead to that unwanted world-without-end-series of EDSAs.

If we do not go the way then of that infinite series, we still are left with what I call the aberration. We haven’t put our heads together yet to see how we go about correcting it without bringing the whole house crushing down on us. This is what we should be doing now?

____________________________________________

I wonder if the system of four-year terms for presidents and the possibility of another four is not after all the best for us. Suffering through six years of a bad presidency (more, if he/she comes in to fill the term of an ousted one—as we have now) is intolerable, and that is why it is easy for people to succumb to the temptation of using extra-constitutional means to end the present one. This is an argument for charter change?

In more established and mature democracies: In the United States, for instance, the Bush presidency is bad enough and highly unpopular, but somehow nobody there is thinking of doing something like an EDSA uprising.

__________________________________________

For some reason some folk proverbs keep intruding on my thoughts as I write this thing—like the one about lying on nests that one has feathered? (We tolerate corruption—and rigged elections—but we do not blame ourselves for their consequences too?) Or changing horses in mid-stream? (It’s akin to the principle in spiritual life: “In desolation, don’t change”—but that’s what we do with every EDSA?) I guess we haven’t really learnt yet what these homely proverbs mean!

Francisco Claver, S.J.

February 19, 2008

Esposo says the piece is an attempt to clarify what the Catholic hierarchy meant by “communal action”. It is a reflection that to my mind reflects the unease with which people view the escalation of political tensions. However at this point, it leaves a lot, perhaps everything, in the hands of the President who has gambled on the fear of the unpredictable consequences of People Power vetoing any widespread support for it as the instrument of last resort.

But the best-laid plans of mice and men… they also tend to go unexpectedly awry. The most unexpected development is how young people have decided, in increasing numbers, to get engaged.

Inday Espina-Varona tackled this development in her blog, scaRRedcat:

Dirty tricks unleashed in airports are embedded in our collective psyche. With apologies to that once great human rights champion, Joker Arroyo, there are some things you do not mess around with.

It’s a bit sad really but then all great lessons of history often come with a certain sadness. Barely a month ago, I wrote of how young Filipinos would rather roll up their sleeves to solve a problem than break out into song and prayers as is their elders’ wont. They’d still rather do that. But, as did good men and women when the Nazis were on the ascendance, Filipinos now see what they missed when they looked away as hundreds of activists were murdered or “disappeared” or when they accepted that cheating at the polls is preferable to getting another actor elected to the Presidency: Wait too long and there may be no one around to hear your cries for help. Now, Everyman is faced with the barrel of a gun…

…Ousting a corrupt and despotic leader is a right of every people as the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights underscores. Revolutions are not, in the strict sense, short cuts. They take time to wage and often come with messy results; that is why they are seen as a people’s last recourse.

But if we are to revolt in the name of democracy then there is no other way but to hew as closely as possible to constitutional change, as we did at EDSA 2. The fact that Mrs. Arroyo has grievously betrayed our trust is no excuse to shortchange ourselves more by anointing leaders outside of constitutional succession terms.

I do not know Vice President Noli de Castro. But he was elected by vast numbers of our people to that post, which comes with the responsibility to take over the Presidency if and when the incumbent Chief Executive can no longer fulfill the duties of that office. Whatever we may think of De Castro’s capabilities or lack thereof, we cannot simply sweep away a mandate conferred by the people.

If we can’t stomach him then we take our lumps and just give Mrs. Arroyo hell until her term runs out or until she institutes a belated regime of reforms, whichever comes first. We cannot decry corruption and officialdom’s penchant for playing fast and loose with the laws of this land and yet do the same in the name of democracy.

Agree! By the way, see another entry, He Said, They Said, a piece of Inday’s originally published in the Philippine Graphic, for a brilliant summary of why the government’s gotten itself into so much hot water. Well done, as well, is Patricia Evangelista’s She said. Over at Placeholder, you can see the La Salle Brothers’ chronology of the Lozadas seeking sanctuary in their school.

And indeed, that was the gist of my column for today: a last-ditch effort to kick-start our institutions into functioning properly might require the threat of People Power.

But people are wracking their brains (and searching their hearts) for ways not to have to resort to it, yet. Though there are those, as reproduced by onomatopoeia, who don’t think the threat should be invoked at all. Disagree!

While the threat of revolution that makes possible a return to the way things ought to be, such a threat, once made, risks having officials call the public’s bluff.

Which means the coming days and weeks requires even more soul-searching to take place.

How far will you go? Should we go? Even Business divided on another ‘People Power’ revolt.

tatsquiblat has some useful advice on what to do: or rather, a prudent approach to take. And review the emerging consensus on concrete steps to take, and the debate on the things that remain unresolved, in Sylvia Mayuga’s Firm Steps to the Light.

One proposal that’s gained wide currency, is for the President to immediately revoke her own Executive Order 464, but as one of many conditions; however,what Joaquin Bernas, S.J. proposes is that revoking the order is enough and all he really wants:

What do I support therefore? I favor attempting a rehabilitation of the presidency. To start with, I favor the complete dismantling of EO 464, the notorious gag which the President has clamped on the mouths of executive officers who are in a position to reveal incriminating truth.

True it is that the objectionable portions of EO 464 (Sections 2b and 3) have been declared unconstitutional. But the executive department continues to behave as if Senate v. Ermita never happened. You will notice that, whenever executive officers are called to testify in an investigation, rarely do such officers claim the lame excuse of executive privilege. They simply say that they are prevented by EO 464. EO 464, although constitutionally dead, remains the biggest obstacle to the discovery of truth. Its dark spirit remains.

How dismantle EO 464? The most efficient way would be for the President and the executive secretary to forget it. Easy, no; difficult, yes. Nevertheless this is a more viable goal than trying to persuade the President to resign and effectively jump into the fire. Moreover, the total abandonment of EO 464 can be the beginning of the rehabilitation of her ailing presidency. E.g., she should now allow the exposure of those who were involved in the corruption that caused her to cancel the ZTE contract. It would be a very concrete way of substantiating her loud cries against corruption. With political will, between now and 2010, much can be achieved toward rehabilitation of the presidency.

The kinds of minds he’s molded are best exemplified by this Ateneo blog. The Arroyo Presidential Library planned for the Ateneo will definitely be a suitable monument.

But what’s at stake and why, despite attempts by the good Jesuit to focus attention on asking for rehabilitation, or even the Senate President’s trying to propose an eventual impeachment, things seem to be coming gingerly to a point of no return, is best explained by Writer’s Block:

In light of all this, we are still obliged to be vigilant. Many people would ask: why continue? The elections are two years away; like her counterpart George W. Bush, she has only this one term left. But remember that we are talking about an “Arroyo government”. How are we to know that Czarina Arroyo would not control the Philippine government from the sidelines, the same way Lee Kuan Yew did in Singapore? There are also the earnest efforts among elements of her government to push through “Charter Reform”, to ensure their continued tenure in power. The point is, two years is two years away, and a lot can still happen in that span.

That’s why the Opposition continues to resist her, and find ways to overthrow her. Not only for the sake of vindication; it is also to ensure that they could sooner dismantle the “Arroyo government” and make sure that the next elections would indeed represent the people’s voice. No one can get her to quit. She, like Hitler before her, can always claim “divine appointment”.

The D Spot worries about her kids, what happens if they decide to join rallies. But Noralyn Mustafa puts the choice in stark terms:

We fail to do this now, the wages of our apathy will be Charter change forced down our throats; we will never see an election ever again in our lives; and we will have the Arroyos and Pidals and Abaloses holding our souls in their hands to the end of our days. And even beyond.

This is the ultimate danger of trying to ease the pressure. It won’t strengthen institutions. It will give the President a second wind. Liling Briones says the economy shouldn’t be an excuse for inaction. Cielito Habito reviews economic prospects for 2008.

As for today’s commemoration, I’ll be at Baclaran, where the Comelec computer operators found refuge after their historic walkout from the PICC. Review The Road to Edsa I, and the events in The Edsa Revolution Website. And do some Reading up on Edsa. And looking back, a mere year ago, to Edsa at 21. And doing his own looking back is Lito Banayo.

And Life’s a Beach has that video that will make all the small-minded mean and sour people angry. Interesting tidbit, too, from One Hundred Eighty Degrees, on an attempt to censor the video.

Postcard Headlines says the real challenge of Edsa is sustaining public vigiliance. Philippine Commentary insists on impeachment or nothing. It will take at the very least a national strike to get that past the House. JB Baylon waxes eloquent:

As I type this while once in a while peering out of my Hong Kong hotel window to watch a gathered mass of Filipinas outside, I feel a rollercoaster of emotions as memories of Edsa 1 flash before me interspersed with images of a weeping Lozada, a grinning Estrada and a still-missing Joc Joc Bolante. I think of Francisco Tatad and how he went public with the declaration of martial law; then I think of Ignacio Bunye and how he went public with his “I have two discs” spin. I focus on how Enrile was “forgiven” his sins in recognition of his key role in Edsa 1, and wonder whether Chavit has been forgiven, too. I think of Clarissa Ocampo and remember Jun Lozada and then I think of Mike Defensor and Mawanay, Garcillano and Bedol. I think of Macapagal Avenue, and then I remember the Centennial Expo scam. I muse about Imelda’s glamor and greed, and think of FG and wonder where the glamor went. I remember Manny Villar’s maneuverings on the impeachment, then recall JDV’s maneuverings and also the maneuverings that led to his own ouster. I think of Fabian Ver and I wonder about Hermogenes Esperon; I think of Fidel Ramos and his relationship with Ver, and wonder who is the Ramos to Esperon. I recall a young and idealistic Gringo, and I imagine a new crop of young officers replacing the ideals of Trillanes and Company. And all of these come to a dead stop like a roller coaster car does when I think of the Filipinas outside my window, huddling under open umbrellas in the cold drizzle that is gripping Hong Kong, and I wonder how their lives will ever change if, at home, years go by and yet everything but the faces of power and greed stay the same?

And good news for all people who like to read: Pete Lacaba has a blog! He has an article on names derived from Martial Law, Edsa, etc. (hat tip to my lil’ red book for noticing that particular article). Another blog to check out is Republic of Pundits.

Book of the Week

PROFILES ENCOURAGE: Ordinary Filipinos Making an Extraordinary Difference

A French historian’s view

William Guerauche examines how MLQ networked, politically, through his correspondence:

 

In French: sociabilités ph.pdf.

“The Dead Flame”: reflections for the weekend

Here is a video that encapsulates it all: the precise instant that Romanian dictator Nicolai Ceausescu lost control of his people.

The title of my entry is taken from the title of one of my favorite chapters in one of my favorite books,“Shah of Shahs” (Ryszard Kapuscinski).

And this is my favorite passage from that chapter, a useful reflection as we look back to 1986 and 2001, and ponder what we want to happen in the days, weeks, months, years to come:

Revolution must be distinguished from revolt, coup d’etat, palace takeover. A coup or a palace takeover may be planned, but a revolution -never. Its outbreak, the hour of that outbreak, takes everyone, even those who have been striving for it, unawares. They stand amazed at the spontaneity that appears suddenly and destroys everything in its path. It demolishes so ruthlessly that in the end it may annihilate the ideals that called it into being.

It is a mistaken assumption that nations wronged by history (and they are in the majority) live with the constant thought of revolution, that they see it as the simplest solution. Every revolution is a drama, and humanity instinctively avoids dramatic situations. Even if we find ourselves in such a situation we look feverishly for a way out, we seek calm and, most often, the commonplace. This is why revolutions never last long. They are a last resort, and if people turn to revolution it is only because long experience has taught them there is no other solution. All other attempts, all other means have failed.* Every revolution is preceded by a state of general exhaustion and takes place against a backdrop of unleashed aggressiveness. Authority cannot put up with a nation that gets on its nerves; the nation cannot tolerate an authority an authority it has come to hate. Authority has squandered all its credibility and has empty hands, the nation has lost the final scrap of patience and makes a fist. A climate of tension and increasing oppressiveness prevails. We start to fall into a psychosis of terror. The discharge is coming. We feel it.

As for the technique of the struggle, history knows two kinds of revolution. The first is revolution by assault, the second revolution by siege. All the future fortune, the success, of a revolution by assault is decided by the reach of the first blow. Strike and seize as much ground as possible! This is important because such a revolution, while the most violent, is also the most superficial. The adversary has been defeated, but in retreating he has preserved a part of his forces. He will counter-attack and force the victor to withdraw. Thus, the more far-reaching the first blow, the greater the area that can be saved in spite of later concessions. In a revolution by assault, the first phase is the most radical. The subsequent phases are a slow but incessant withdrawal to the point at which the two sides, the rebelling and the rebelled-against, reach the final compromise. A revolution by siege is different; here the first strike is usually weak and we can hardly surmise that it forebodes a cataclysm. But events soon gather speed and become dramatic. More and more people take part. The walls behind which authority has been sheltering crack and then burst. The success of a revolution by siege depends on the determination of the rebels, on their will power and endurance. One more day! One more push! In the end, the gates yield, the crowd breaks in and celebrates its triumph.

It is authority that provokes revolution. Certainly, it does not do so consciously. Yet its style of life and way of ruling finally become a provocation. This occurs when a feeling of impunity takes root among the elite: We are allowed anything, we can do anything. This is a delusion, but it rests on a certain rational foundation. For a while, it does indeed look as if they can do whatever they want. Scandal after scandal and illegality after illegality go unpunished. The people remain silent, patient, wary. They are afraid and do not yet feel their own strength. At the same time, they keep a detailed account of the wrongs, which at one particular moment are to be added up. The choice of that moment is the greatest riddle known to history. Why did it happen on that day, and not on another? Why did this event, and not some other, bring it about? After all, the government was indulging in even worse excesses only yesterday, and there was no reaction at all. “What have I done?” asks the ruler, at a loss. “What has possessed them all of a sudden?” This is what he has done: He has abused the patience of the people. But where is the limit of that patience? How can it be defined? If the answer can be determined at all, it will be different in each case. The only certain thing is that rulers who know that such a limit exists and know how to respect it can count on holding power for a long time. But there are few such rulers.

So was 1986 a Revolution by Siege and 2001 a Revolution by Assault? And the fate of the President lies in her hands, not in those of her critics. Something to ponder. I’ll give you a couple of concrete examples of what I mean.

In the case of Manuel Gaite, his wife has, understandably (and even justifiably) enough pleaded for fairness because of the public criticisms of her husband’s behavior. But we ought to consider how much of the outrageous arrows of fortune now sticking out of her husband, is due to those who have accepted Jun Lozada’s statesments as Gospel truth, and how much are due to Gaite’s own statetements -and that of the Palace. Gaite’s defense is a simple one: he is a good soldier, but a foot soldier may be the first to fall, as Fr. Joaquin Bernas points out in Shielding the President; and a soldier, even if good, fighting to what end? As History Unfolding points out, an official may fight well but not for worthy goals. Even the good soldier defense, as Torn & Frayed pointed out, insults the intelligence.

For this reason and many others (he surely had a hand in drafting some of the most noxious executive issuances of our time), while I sympathize with Mrs. Gaite and I think Gaite himself tries to be a good person, I am unsympathetic to where this has all led him.

In his testimony before the Senate, and indeed, on the basis of the administration officials who testified, one thing they didn’t shirk was that they tried to prevent Lozada from appearing before the Senate. Gaite admitted the Palace’s objective was to facilitate Lozada’s leaving the country until the Senate could wrap up the ZTE hearings. A recent Inquirer summed it up as a confession of conspiracy. What the administration tried to dodge was the allegation of abduction.

Another, and related, example is this: Lozada passport turned over to court. I’ve heard it said that when the passport was produced, the faces of the lawyers from the Solicitor-General’s office fell. The whole problem with the passport, apparently, was that a stamp showing Lozada had gone through immigration upon his arrival would have demolished the claim of an abduction. The problem was, no lower-level person from the Bureau of Immigration wanted to be a party to order to stamp the passport: it would have required a lower-level bureaucrat to stake his name and reputation on saying he’d stamped the passport when Lozada arrived, when no immigration official did. This implies that these bureaucrats didn’t think it was worth their while to take the heat for their bosses -and the surrendering of the passport to the court by a lower-level security person is a similar refusal to further take the heat for the bosses.

Let me refer, once more, to my Thursday column, Minimum and maximum, which tries to distinguish between two courts: of public opinion and of the law. Each has their proper place and they are not, much as the Palace insists, mutually exclusive: but each has its proper place and both are being actively resorted to (most recently: Lozada files kidnap, murder raps vs Razon, Atienza, et al ). Last Tuesday on my show my lawyer guest pointed out that Lozada’s testimony before the Senate is significant, in that it can be used to impeach him in court cases; therefore his assertions can actually fortify or weaken cases related to him or to officials in the courts.

Meanwhile let me state for the record that whatever my own preferences may be, I do not think a consensus for People Power exists, yet; or that there is even a widespread demand for the President’s resignation, yet: because there is no consensus on what should come afterwards. I find it heartening that people from all sides are making efforts to encourage arriving at a consensus.

But I do think three things have happened: first, more people are open to either option, and second, that the President faces a significant erosion in the constituency she fairly successfully claimed to represent from 2001 to the present: big business, the entrepreneurial class, include the Filipino-Chinese merchant class, professionals, and the provinces, and the majority of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Why this has taken place, now, is best clarified by Manuel Buencamino in his column, Everyone has a limit.

At the Mass in La Salle Greenhills on Sunday, I saw a classmate and good friend of Mike Arroyo. I teased him, took his picture with my cell phone, and told him, “I’m going to ‘MMS’ this photo to your friends Mike and Gloria.” He replied, “I already waved my middle finger at them when I passed the security cameras at the gate.”
I saw a nun from the Assumption College, Gloria Arroyo’s alma mater and bastion of support. My daughter commented, “Look, dad, there’s a lonely Assumption nun. Are they breaking ranks?”
I laughed and texted Manuel Quezon III about the apparition and he texted back, “She is not alone.”
Everyone has his limits. I suppose that’s what Gloria’s bishops meant when they said there is some good in everyone, including unrepentant liars, bribers, cheaters, plunderers, kidnappers and murderers.

Third, even among those still unprepared to consider resignation or People Power, there is also a growing number of people who have reached the conclusion that the President does not intend to step down in 2010, but they are still digesting the implications of this realization.

As Amando Doronila points out in Mounting outrage, little momentum :

Although there are signs of increasing public outrage over the NBN scandal, a higher state of outrage is needed to send huge numbers of people to the streets. The military is watching the size of the crowd before it makes a move either to remain loyal to the commander in chief or withdraw support, like it did in 2001, when the general staff dumped Estrada.

And yet, as Mon Casiple suggests,

Malacañang is scrambling for the initiative. Mobilization by friendly LGU units are being planned, sprinkled by a few pro-GMA NGOs and church personalities. A media offensive has been launched–against Lozada, JDV, the opposition, and even against Vice-President Noli de Castro. The de Castro media attack seeks to prevent a possible de Castro defection that can fundamentally undermine GMA’s chances of survival.

And so, for betting men, the Asia Sentinel (in Philippines + Scandal = Life Goes On , which resembles Doronila’s views) is right in saying the advantage remains with the administration. For some, the old arguments still hold water, as shown by A Simple Life. See also …got my life back….

But if it is unable to turn the tide before Holy Week, then what? Let’s return to Mon Casiple:

If it is not able to regain the initiative in the coming days, then the momentum for people power may not be denied and a GMA resignation will be the only outcome, either to preempt people power or as a consequence of one. The key institutions to watch are the Catholic church, big business, military, the Cabinet, and the ruling coalition. All these are watching closely the rise of the people’s movement and are making their decisions on an hour-by-hour basis.

The political crisis may be resolved in a matter of days or weeks; failure to do so will create a sustained and debilitating crisis for the rest of the year.

Ricky Carandang pretty much sees the same challenge facing the administration: having created problems for itself, how does it turn the tables on its critics? In a suitably short period of time, too. See what reporter Jove Francisco has to say, too, about the way old strategies don’t work as effectively, anymore. See pine for pine for another example. But blog@AWB Holdings doesn’t think that trotting out the President’s Assumption friends really helps.

There is only so much we can do. But of the things we can do -consulting with people, fostering consensus, but also, recognizing our own limits and what we will do if those limits are going to be crossed by possible events- let’s do them.

There is another broad consensus that I think exists: that the problems are deep, and yes, systemic, and this means once we take a step in a particular direction, we have to ask ourselves if we are prepared to live with events unfolding to their logical conclusion. Which, of course, includes the risk of unintended consequences, too.

Let me close with another illuminating passage from the same chapter from the same book I quoted at the beginning of this entry:

The Shah’s reflex was typical of all despots: Strike first and suppress, then think it over: What next? First, display muscle, make a show of strength, and later perhaps demonstrate you also have a brain. Despotic authority attaches great importance to being considered strong, and much less to bering admired for its wisdom. Besides, what does wisdom mean to a despot? It means skill in the use of power. The wise despot know when and how to strike. This continual display of power is necessary because, at root, any dictatorship appeals to the lowest instincts of the governed: fear, aggressiveness towards one’s neighbors, bootlicking. Terror most effectively excites such instincts, and fear of strength is the wellspring of terror.

A despot believes that man is an abject creature. Abject people fill his court and populate his environment. A terrorized society will behave like an unthinking, submissive mob for a long time. Feeding it is enough to make it obey. Provided with amusements, it’s happy. The rather small arsenal of political tricks has not changed in millennia. Thus, we have all the amateurs in politics, all the ones convinced they would know how to govern if only they had the authority. Yet surprising things can also happen. Here is a well-fed and well-entertained crowd that stops obeying. It begins to demand something more than entertainment. It wants freedom, it demands justice. The despot is stunned. He doesn’t know how to see a man in all his fullness and glory. In the end such a man threatens dictatorship, he is its enemy. So it gathers its strength and destroys him.

Although dictatorship despises the people, it takes pains to win its recognition. In spite of being lawless -or rather, because it is lawless- it strives for the appearance of legality. On this point it is exceedingly touchy, morbidly oversensitive. Moreover, it suffers from a feeling (however deeply hidden) of inferiority. So it spares no pains to demonstrate to itself and others the popular approval it enjoys. Even if this support is a mere charade, it feels satisfying. So what if it’s only an appearance? The world of dictatorship is full of appearances…

…The most difficult thing to do while living in a palace is to imagine a different life -for instance, your own life, but outside of and minus the palace. Toward the end, the ruler finds people willing to help him out. Many lives, regrettably, can be lost at such moments. The problem of honor in politics. Take de Gaulle -a man of honor. He lost a referendum, tidied up his desk, and left the palace, never to return. He wanted to govern only under the condition that the majority accept him. The moment the majority refused him their trust, he left. But how many are like him? The others will cry, but they won’t move; they’ll torment the nation, but they won’t budge. Thrown out one door, they sneak in through another; kicked down the stairs, they begin to crawl back up. They will excuse themselves, bow and scrape, lie and simper, provided they can stay -or provided they can return. They will hold out their hands -Look, no blood on them. But the very fact of having to show those hands covers them with the deepest shame. They will turn their pockets inside out -Look, there’s not much there. But the very fact of exposing their pockets -how humiliating! The Shah, when he left the palace, was crying. At the airport he was crying again. Later he explained in interviews how much money he had, and that it was less than people thought.

This passage suggests many things; among them, the solid logic behind Atty. Raul Pangalanan’s arguments against The arguments for inaction.

And how’s this for action: First Gentleman leaves for Hong Kong–airport sources: Lawyer clueless but says not evading NBN probes.

Yesterday I texted some people I know outside Manila what they think, re: Lozada. Responses:

Bacolod:

hati rin kmi d2, sa ofc (provl gov’t) we biliv some facts bt questns are many like dat of what he dnt tel snce it s a big questn y now lg xa went out to d open… Protectn 2 life yes, but we cnt say 100% we biliv him…

Also from Bacolod:

They all believe him. But they are also disgusted with his investigators. Nobody I know trust that the Opposition want change -they just want their turn. The big change is they all hate GMA now but no tipping point. [The politicians are] discombobulated. They don’t know how to read the situation now. Even Bacolod’s notorious GMA lapdog Monico Puentevella who has managed to be close to all Presidents since Cory has signed a resolution against GMA which means He’s also paving the way for the next power “just in case.”

A student journalist at La Salle Bacolod:

Do u believe in Jun Lozada’s statements? 1000 Lasallian students. [survey results] 73% YES. 9% NO. 18% undecided.

From Naga City:

Save for some ppld identified wid Dato Arroyo phoning in radio programs, public sentiment is overwhelmingly wid Jun Lozada by a mile. Metro Naga chamber of commerce broke ranks wid PCCI and issued a statement supporting Lozada. Ateneo de Naga and Univ Sta. Isabel leading regl signature campaigning asking GMA to step down./ Ders a big protest event slated tom. da prolonged rains -for more than a wk now- notwithstanding

From Cebu City:

I think most people from Cebu are indifferent when comes to politics. But people do consider him credible. As a business person, most policies of the present administration are skewed towards favored businessmen. Regulatory Capture of Government Agencies is so obvious. Get rid all the nasty people hostaging the president. She’s good but helpless.

Also from a Cebu City friend currently traveling:

Met up w/friend (f. 32, married, filchi, alabang) n BKK, she says ppl back home don’t care anymore -the’ll see see what comes.My sister (f.41.single) joked “Who’s he” but says she was in NAIA with him the other night. Before I left Cebu, my thought my thought was: is this guy for real? is he honest? we all sort of presume that BigBoy is also BadBoy but really do we want yet another popular uprising? I suppose the general sentiment is… there’s a lack of it. people are getting apathetic again -at least marcos babies like us.

From Davao City:

So far, people believe him and his testimony… Pero as far as suportng anodr edsa, dats anodr story. I belv they wud want 2 w8 4 2010. No ppl powr dis tym… Prblm s corrupt s so widespread that ppl hv bcm cncal on d mattr… Evn d senators ond way or odr s nvolvd.

South Cotabato, according to the Davao City texter,

N so cotab2, d sentiment s mor ntense re anti gma coz its a known opositn area.

In Manila, a student from UST has this to say:

Still lookng 4 a concrete thing to do besides rally. Mabe if we start pressuring congressmen to support impeachment now. Itll giv anyone intrsted somthng to do.

Many of dem talk re hs crdblty n hw d whol plan 2 covr up only incrsd prcption dat he’s saying d truth, bt many r also dsenchantd w/ d hrings. F u ask me, d real ish brot abt b d series of NBN probes is being muddld by focus n prsonalties (lozada’s crdbtly, neri’s conscience, abalos’ guilt, gma’s involvmnt). Mnwyl, no 1. evn d opp s movng fast 2 fx d dysfnctional govt procurmnt 2 prvnt such deals frm hpening agn. Dat’s y ppol get tyrd of it ol n tune out

Congres or any poltcian is always undr d comand of pblic presure. Bt pols cnt feel that presure, bec media coverge is muddld, ppol just tune out. F media focuses n d real issues, ppol wil spil on d streets nt (jst) to chnge govt bt to presure it to initiate chnges. When ths starts n media covrs frm an ishus prspctv, a virtuous cycle wil begin, more powrful thn any powr brker. That kind of media advocacy hs bn sucesful in Africa, Europ n evn in US.

D real ishus r d dysfunctions in govt, thos dat Neri hs bn lamentng in hs polecon lectures. No one wants cheatng, bt no one is pushng… for elections effciency. No wnts coruption, bt no one is pushng to chnge d govt procurnmnt systm. no one is keeping govt audts in check (unles they cn use it for poltcal blakmail). D ishus r nt poverty. Povrty s an efect of our systemic problems, w/c is y that shud be our focus, nt ppol. Bec whoevr sits in gov’t r accidntal to do problem. Corruption cn always prospr in a systm left unchckd.

And from a lawyer:

Funny u shld ask, I was discusing it wid an ofcmate ystrdy, he said at first he was riveted by d whole thing but lately wid d idiots in d legislature grandstanding (galit lang dawbec dey werent in on it) he has gotten tired and tuned it out. Sad, and maybe dats d point of dis admin, 2 make pipol so sick as 2 turn apathetic as a way 2 cope.

And I.T. person:

Most people i talk to believe him, they see no ulterior motive for what he is doing.

As for the blogosphere, yugatech on how wiretapping’s getting cheaper; missingpoints on comparing Lozada to Singson. Bayan ni Kabayan on trying to understand Joker Arroyo. The Venom Speaks suggests we all make a self-check first.

Update, 2 am Saturday: noise barrages have caught the imagination of students! Check out video in Life’s precious moments don’t have value, unless they are shared. , and photos in *dawnskee* and rheavargas and I’m becoming tired… , as well as descriptions in spread YOUR wings and catch ME as i fall and Fly and forever dance and Me, Myself, and I… and des’ Site and the ME behind the I and “my crazy little place is just around the corner”

And more statements, first from the UP Law Faculty and Students and then:

To a fellow economist and former colleague, Gloria Macapagal-ArroyoA statement from economists of the Ateneo de Manila University

We are outraged by the revelations made by Engr. Rodolfo Noel Lozada Jr. at the Philippine Senate Blue Ribbon hearings last 8 February 2008 about the overpriced Zhong Xing Telecommunication Equipment Company-National Broadband Network (ZTE-NBN) project. The project has no clear public rationale in the first place. We are dismayed by the revelations of Mr. Lozada that former Commission on Election Chairman Benjamin Abalos Sr., with the alleged involvement of First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo, ordered the inclusion in the proposed project a large amount of kickbacks, amounting to as much as 130 million US dollars (or more than 5.2 billion pesos), enough money to remove the yearly public school classroom backlog, or purchase 5.8 million sacks of NFA rice, or alternatively secure the basic needs of about 29,000 poor families for a year. Simply put, a lot is being sacrificed for the greed of the few.

We are angered by the continuing attempt to cover up the anomalous circumstances surrounding the project, including the supposed kidnapping of Mr. Lozada to keep him from testifying in the Senate. We demand that government remove the cloak of Executive Order 464 and the invocation of executive privilege to allow public officials that have knowledge on the transaction to publicly testify on the circumstances of the deal. We demand the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) to release records of the meetings that allowed the contract to be processed. Because of the nature of the work of the NEDA in national economic planning to promote national development and public welfare (and not for private or individual interests), these minutes are public records. We want Secretary Romulo Neri, an Ateneo high school alumnus and supposed staunch advocate of reforms to eradicate transactional politics and oligarchic dominance in the country, to reveal all that he knows about the matter. Efficiency and equity demand no less.

We abhor the habit of this administration of forging secret deals and engaging in non-transparent processes in developing and contracting large infrastructure projects, especially foreign donor-funded programs, contrary to the tenets of good governance. We call on friends and colleagues in the government, especially the alumni of our university, and other sectors to help ferret out the truth about other alleged irregular deals entered into by corrupt public officials, including the fertilizer scam, the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority book scam and the North Rail project.

We urge our fellow economist, alumna, and former Ateneo colleague, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, to fully explain and account for all the anomalies under her administration to prevent our country from plunging into another political and economic crisis. Indeed, we are dismayed that Mrs. Arroyo has not exercised the vast powers and resources available to the Presidency to ensure that large-scale corruption in the government is not only blocked but also punished, and that these irregularities have only increased political instability and uncertainty in the country. We are also offended that the Presidency has instead utilized these vast powers and resources to turn its back from servicing the public and contribute to the advancement of private greed, including the Machiavellian buying of congressmen, governors, and everybody else that get its way. And sadly, these abuses have eroded the meaning and legitimacy of the Presidency. If she fails to fully account and explain the anomalies and corrupt practices in her administration, the most honorable thing she can do is to resign from the Presidency.

Finally, we publicly pledge to heed the Catholic Bishops’ call to communal action by supporting the activities that would promote transparency, accountability, and good governance, and we call on our fellow social scientists and academics to support this advocacy. We pledge to make our voices heard by committing to various ways of peaceful and non-violent political mobilization.

– Signatures –

Fernando T. Aldaba
Cristina M. Bautista
Germelino M. Bautista
Edsel L. Beja, Jr.
Diana U. del Rosario
Luis F. Dumlao
Cielito F. Habito
Leonardo A. Lanzona
Joseph Anthony Y. Lim
Romelia I. Neri
Ellen H. Palanca
Malou A. Perez
Joselito T. Sescon
Tara Sia-Go
Patrick Gerard C. Simon-King
Rosalina P. Tan
Philip Arnold P. Tuaño

The Mandate of Heaven (concluded the next day)

“Unity Walk”

“Solidarity Walk”

Same walk, different caption. A sign of the state of confusion at the Palace. Is it just me, or or are these pictured (from yesterday, the so-called “solidarity walk,” swiftly retitled “unity walk” at the Palace; by the way, see abashet joey on the President and PhotoShop) too creepily reminiscent of the End Days for Estrada, when he, too, tried to show his administration wasn’t beleaguered, by trotting out his cabinet?

Who among them is in or in the official family? The Inquirer editorial yesterday asked, Is it Neri next? and today it says it’s Panic time.

Trot, trot, clip-clop, tick-tock. What do you get?
A horse gone wild: Adviser calls Arroyo ‘luckiest b*tch’.
That’s just karma for what must surely have been a Palace factotum-released tusongbaboy YouTube video, featuring what seem to be wiretapped conversations between Jun Lozada and Joey de Venecia.

The Financial Times reports the President may be losing her fondness for playing the China card. I’ve begun rather interesting scuttlebutt of an intriguing kind, involving a government commitment to relinquishing our claims to the Spratley Islands in exchange for investments. But nothing firmer than that.

The ancient Chinese believed that the “mandate of Heaven” was revealed by tangible signs, such as flood or famine. Such misfortunes were indications that the legitimacy of a ruler was waning. Confucius elaborated the idea further, and taught that the “mandate of Heaven” was dependent on knowing the moral order of the universe, and demonstrating it in the six relationships that govern superiors and subordinates (i.e. minister to prince, friend to friend, teacher to student).

These relationships are evident in the various groups bestirred by recent events.

The Action for Economic Reforms is holding a presscon-forum on “The Godmother and the Philippine mafia” on Friday, Feb. 22 9:30 am to 12 noon at the Sta. Ana Room, 3rd Floor, U.P. College of Law. On the same day, February 22, The Law Student Government Coordinating Council, composed of the Student Councils of the Ateneo Law, UP, UST, FEU-La Salle and UE Schools of Law will be holding various activities (see i’m NOT a stop along the way. i’m a a DESTINATION for details). And Simbahang Lingkod ng Bayan has a forum on Feb. 23 (with regards to the Ateneo, read the concrete steps proposed by Simbahang Lingkod ng Bayan in their statement, as well as those proposed by the Ateneo’s Department of Political Science in its statement (the question then becomes, of course, what if government refuses to do anything?). On Feb. 25, there will be a “Concert for Truth, Accountablity and Reform” at the Ateneo from 4-8 pm (for information contact Ms. Reese Fernandez Programs Head, Team RP Tel: (02) 426-5657 <reesefernandez@ yahoo.com>)

Starting February 24, it seems Masses “for Truth vs. Corruption” are going to be held, sequentially, in Adamson University, the University of Santo Tomas, de la Salle University, and then Miriam College.

In recent weeks, the political landscape of the Philippines has been shaken because of one man, Rodolfo Noel Lozada, Jr., and his past proximity to Romulo Neri, Jr.

Both are of Chinese extraction; I have even heard that Romulo Neri, Jr. practices a form of divination, the I Ching. At this point it seems to me, whether consciously or not, both consider themselves Mandarins.

The Analects of Confucius, L. Giles translation.

The first two extracts concern definitions of good government. The first involves the “five excellent things” and the “four evil things”:

Tzü Chang asked Confucius, saying: What are the essentials of good government?—The Master said: Esteem the five excellent, and banish the four evil things; then you will become fit to govern. —Tzu Chang asked: What are the five excellent things?—The Master replied: The wise and good ruler is benevolent without expending treasure; he lays burdens on the people without causing them to grumble; he has desires without being covetous; he is serene without being proud; he is awe-inspiring without being ferocious.—He is benevolent without expending treasure: what does that mean?—The Master replied: He simply follows the course which naturally brings benefit to the people. Is he not thus benevolent without expending treasure? In imposing burdens, he chooses the right time and the right means, and nobody can grumble. His desire is for goodness, and he achieves it; how should he be covetous? The wise and good ruler never allows himself to be negligent, whether he is dealing with many men or with few, with small matters or with great. Is this not serenity without pride? He has his cap and robe properly adjusted, and throws a noble dignity into his looks, so that his gravity inspires onlookers with respect. Is he not thus awe-inspiring without being ferocious?—Tzü Chang then asked: What are the four evil things?—The Master said: Cruelty:—leaving the people in their native ignorance, yet punishing their wrong-doing with death. Oppression: requiring the immediate completion of tasks imposed without previous warning. Ruthlessness:—giving vague orders, and then insisting on punctual fulfilment. Peddling husbandry:—stinginess in conferring the proper rewards on deserving men.

The second related extract involves the tangible signs of good government, and the things that can be dispensed with, and the thing that absolutely cannot be dispensed with:

Tzü Kung asked for a definition of good government. The Master replied: It consists in providing enough food to eat, in keeping enough soldiers to guard the State, and in winning the confidence of the people.—And if one of these three things had to be sacrificed, which should go first?—The Master replied: Sacrifice the soldiers.—And if of the two remaining things one had to be sacrificed, which should it be?—The master said: Let it be the food. From the beginning, men have always had to die. But without the confidence of the people no government can stand at all.

Then two extracts in a similar vein, on the means to maintain public confidence, and the means to instill harmony in the people.

A simple rule of thumb concerning the hiring and firing of officials:

Duke Ai asked, saying: What must I do that my people may be contented? – Confucius replied: Promote the upright and dismiss all evildoers, and the people will be contented. Promote the evil-doers and dismiss the upright, and the people will be discontented.

A similar reiteration concerning promotions:

Chi K’-ang Tzü asked by what means he might cause his people to be respectful and loyal, and encourage them in the path of virtue. The Master replied: Conduct yourself towards them with dignity, and you will earn their respect; be a good son and a kind prince, and you will find them loyal; promote the deserving and instruct those who fall short, and they will be encouraged to follow the path of virtue.

And then, an extract pointing to the importance of precision on the part of policy makers:

Tzü Lu said: The Prince of Wei is waiting, Sir, for you to take up the reins of government. Pray what is the first reform you would introduce?—The Master replied: I would begin by defining terms and making them exact. —Oh, indeed! exclaimed Tzü Lu. But how can you possibly put things straight by such a circuitous route?—The Master said: How unmannerly you are, Yu! In matters which he does not understand, the wise man will always reserve his judgement. If terms are not correctly defined, words will not harmonise with things. If words do not harmonise with things, public business will remain undone. If public business remains undone, order and harmony will not flourish. If order and harmony do not flourish, law and justice will not attain their ends. If law and justice do not attain their ends, the people will be unable to move hand or foot. The wise man, therefore, frames his definitions to regulate his speech, and his speech to regulate his actions. He is never reckless in his choice of words.

And what about wrongdoers?

Chi K’ang Tzü questioned Confucius on a point of government, saying: Ought not I to cut out off the lawless in order to establish law and order? What do you think? -Confucius replied: Sir, what need is there of the death penalty in your system of government? If you showed a sincere desire to be good, your people would likewise be good. The virtue of the prince is like unto wind; that of the people, like unto grass. For it is the nature of grass to bend when the wind blows upon it.

In sum, then, in the face of wrongdoing on the part of officials, considering the things that make for effective government, and which weaken it:

Confucius rejoined: Ch’iu, an honest man hates your hypocrite who will not openly avow his greed, but tries instead to excuse it. I have heard that the ruler of a state or of a clan is troubled not by the smallness of its numbers but by the absence of even-handed justice; not by poverty but by the preresence of discontent; for where there is justice there will be no poverty; where there is harmony there will be no lack in numbers; where there is content there will be no revolution. This being the case then, if outlying communities resist your authority, cultivate the arts of refinement and goodness in order to attract them; and when you have attracted them, make them happy and contented. Now you two, Yu and Ch’iu, are aiding and abetting your master; here is an outlying community which resists your authority, and you are unable to attract it. Partition and collapse are imminent in your own State, and you are unable to preserve it intact. And yet you are planning military aggression within in the borders of your country! Verily I fear that Chi-sun’s troubles will come, not from Chuan-yü, but from the interior of his own palace.

Do you need someone else to tie this all together for you? Including the abstract at the end of this entry? Thank you, Left Flank.

The question then… as my column for today is titled, is for people to see what the Minimum and maximum goals they want achieve from hereon up to 2010 will be. (someone who takes the court of public opnion seriously is Chances in the Starlight).
Blogger un suplemento metafisico a la realidad de mi existencia slices and dices things very well:

The administration shall be presumed innocent until they are proven guilty. However, its actions do not allow me to do so. The anti-truth mafia has scribbled so much manipulation of evidence, information, and facts that the presumption of innocence has been vaporized. Instead of testifying for the “truth” the co-conspirators of the anti-truth mafia has been hiding behind what they call “executive privilege.” The administration has pushed the envelope too far. It is now at the edge of a cliff and is desperately holding on by trying to cover-up all pieces of evidence that may eventually lead to its demise.

Thanks to the anti-truth mafia’s propaganda, Jun Lozada has been accused of harboring nothing but hearsay which they claim is inadmissible in courts. However, he does say these statements under oath, thus he has with him what is called testimonial evidence. “A woman who has been raped can send a man in jail just with her testimonies.”(Escudero, 2008) In addition, he seems to be very consistent with his statements unlike some of the anti-truth mafia. Jun Lozada was also accused of being corrupt – which he admitted with a smile, and I think this makes him all the more credible – He was part of the project, he was an insider, he knew the goings-on of the ZTE-NBN deal.

Jun Lozada is neither a saint nor a hero but he has with him the truth. Whether he came out to tell the truth for the sake of truth or for some other ulterior motives – which is hard to think of considering that his testifying in the Senate has put him in a very precarious situation. If he were to lie, what motive was so great that he was willing to put himself out of the pan and into the fire almost voluntarily? Testifying has put Jun Lozada between the legendary monsters Scylla and Charybdis. He is currently between hell and the deep blue sea. In whatever perspective I try to view the course of events for Jun Lozada, I can’t seem to find any advantage that he might gain in testifying. In fact, he was “forced” to do so – as with the summons, this implies that testifying is not advantageous for him. On the other hand, he might be thinking of a career in showbiz. If that is so, then he is making a good start. We are probably watching one of the best soap operas ever made.

It doesn’t matter whether or not the bringer of truth has been tainted with wrongdoings in the past. What is more important is that he has the truth with him and so his voice shall be heard. The substance lie in the statements, not in the personality. An honest man will voluntarily take off his clothes to show that he has nothing to hide; while a thief would wear layers upon layers of clothes just to hide whatever it is that he has stolen.

In the rest of the blogosphere, the Ateneo Mass last Monday was covered by Don’t fight darkness. Bring the light, and darkness will disappear and by Mahal ko Pilipinas!!!!! and …strawberry-filled donuts… (Lozada’s nephew) and with photos by Blahg, Standing in Motion, neo saicon, sj while thatniceboy gives an insight into the minds of those who remain detached. There were other activities, too: it’s a yummy world recounts attending a Mass at the Redemptorist Church. highwayse7en8 doesn’t like Masses with political aims. Neither does priest-blogger Bangor to Bobbio. On the other hand, Postcard Headlines in Cebu describes the first glimmerings of people bucking the view that the city is “GMA Country”.

As for Lozada, lifelong learning compares what he’s doing to debriding dead tissue; pine for pine compares folksy Lozada and Abalos stories; as for views, there are the pro: there’s lecheplan, and four-eyed joie’s thoughts as well as Verities of a Writer’s heart; con: you can’t be more straightforward in expressing skepticism than under deconstruction; and neutral: preMEDitated wants to believe, but doesn’t yet. dino! dedicates poetry to the man. rl_829 thinks he’s a dead man. My Mirror to Reality undertakes an interesting experiment: what if Lozada is 100% good, or what if he’s 100% evil?Law and ICT and mga kababalaghan sa buhay ko take opposing views on whether Lozada’s phone being hacked is believable or not. Vincula points out we should give thanks for the demolition team assembled by the Palace.

There are, of course, continuing views on what’s going on. Katataspulong some time ago, wondered if people really want decent officials, or whether the tangled web of corruption makes for a comfortable pigsty for everyone. jmtaylor has a bone to pick with politicians in general. Romwald’s Realm tackles the dynamics of corruption: subtle rebel runs down a list of the ironies of life (politics-wise).

Lawyer notes of marichu c. lambino points out that the government keeps corroborating the testimony of Lozada (tart comments on Gaite’s admitting he gave Lozada half a million in Alleba Politics and Bong Montesa’s weblog ). The Mount Balatucan Monitor is certain of the outcome of government efforts at damage control. The Warrior Lawyer takes a similarly skeptical look at the Ombudsman, etc.

And yet… there are those who prefer to stick it out with the administration because they continue to loath those who oppose her more. In a sense, the “same-same” message track of the Palace continues to work, as Walk This Way echoes:

I mean, yes, the First Gentleman is a little piglet. No doubt about that. But please don’t tell me that all the politicians pursuing this issue aren’t little piglets either (below). Getting little greasy slices of pork from projects like the NBN is modus operandi in ANY administration – it’s no secret to us and it’s no secret to the senators doing the grilling. It’s been the modus operandi for decades! Where else would ANY administration get money to do things like, oh, give to senators and congressmen for their election campaigns? Senators and Congressmen don’t come for free, ya know. Tip: instead of looking at the noisy ones, let’s try and count who are the quiet ones in Senate and Congress. Perhaps they are quiet because they already were given their pieces of the pork. And it’s only the squealing ones that are upset because they didn’t get theirs. Hence, if it’s all just piggies fighting piggies over pieces of pork that they just pass on to other piggies, then it’s just politics in the end. Period. Philippine politics and governance is sick, that is as obvious as obvious can be. But will this Jun Lozada scandal be the catalyst for the great changes that need to be made? Ha! Great changes will be done in this society through small ways and on a person to person basis. Paradigm shifts don’t happen through Senate hearings. Trust me, this “moral revolution” WILL NOT be televised.
Do I think corruption should be addressed? Yes. Do I think getting rid of Gloria will solve this issue? No. Do I agree with JDV that a moral revolution in government should be pursued? Yes. But will that revolution come from Senate and from Congress or from JDV himself. Hell no. Parehong baboy silang lahat. So that’s why I’m ignoring the politics and protests. And judging by their sad rally last week (Please. Makati Business Club, Black and White Movement, Cory Aquino et al. More people attended the Beyonce concert than your rally), I think others are too.

A senior citizen, My Life in the Philippines, is ambivalent about removing the President from office but for different reasons:

I consider GMA having lost the “Moral Authority” to continue on as President until Yr2010. Granting PGMA credit for a resurging Philippine Economy does not justify Moral Bankrupcy. While our kind of Democracy has made ours a “Country-of-Laws” (where Public Issues ought to be decided in the heirarchy of our Courts), a collective judgement of a fully-informed Citizenry (by a Free Press) in the Court-of-Public Opinion does carry a strong moral value.
…On the other hand, I believe: (1st) That People Power I & II have not brought about a “Better Philippines”. I consider “Graft & Corruption,et.al” as an Ethical Problem which have not and could not be remedied by street-mandated Political Solutions – i.e. People Power Change-of-Presidents; (2nd) That the Church (visibly represented by the Religious Priest & Nuns in the Streets, in Congress, in the Courts) have failed in its Pastoral Work of enlightening and encouraging Political Leaders to move away from the evil of Greed-for-Money – thus necessitating “Graft & Corruption”.
…Given all of the above, I contend that it would be good for our country for PGMA to continue in office until Yr2010. But, she must take the lead for all in Public Office in a “Moral Crusade for Good Government”. She (together with all who would follow her example) could redeem herself/themselves in the Public Eye and erase all doubts about “Hidden Wealth” by a public demonstration of giving-up 90% of their respective Family’s Private Wealth accumulated during their entire Political Career. I liken this “Moral Crusade” to a “National Cleansing” following the Korean Example – not too long ago.

The senior citizen blogger isn’t alone: UST student james_cartmire says something similar:

i got into some debate though when i opened that my position, no matter where investigations lead, was for gma to definitely finish her term in 2010. i said that even if everything leads to impeachment, the impeachment process, being a political process, will just muddle and broker ties with old faces, further preventing genuine reform efforts, and that the whole gma vendetta might even ruin the promise of a new start in 2010. i also echoed what neri purportedly said (based on the supposed lozada document i received trhough mail) that an impeachment buzz would just increase government spending (i.e. malacañang diverting public funds to buy out representatives, opinion leaders and power brokers) and that all these crises could lead to another economic slump. after almost breaking to a 39-level before the nbn hearing resumed, just yesterday, the peso-dollar exchange rate was again P41 to $1.

And so, some are ambivalent about resignation or People Power (see paperchimes.net). Or the Catholic Church: Brown SEO asks some tough questions, as does Philippine Commentary opposes People Power. On the other hand, Ceci Da Supastar reproduces the soul-searching appeal of a member of the Left, who says they can’t afford to miss the bus again:

Why should we work with them? Because we all want the same short term goals, which are the end of the GMA administration, the reform of a corrupt system, and free and fair elections. We may disagree on our broad ideologies, but we agree that these are the immediate obstacles to our various long term goals.
But, perhaps more importantly, if there is anything we should have learned from our EDSA experiences, it is that we want bargaining chips when this is all over so that we can influence the future. And those bargaining chips only come in the form of weight of our participation and the numbers we draw.

And yet… Lunasandwich says people are increasingly interested, but still stumped on what to do:

I take this as a good sign, of the keen interest of the people to know how others feel or think about the issue. What has really struck me though is the disenchantment and shared distrust for almost all people in government…
It seems the enormity of the problem — graft and corruption (which does not end with Arroyo’s removal from office) and the deeply rooted social malaise — is not lost on the people. Sadly, while the problem has long been identified, at the moment, people still seem to be at loss on what to do.

Marvelous photos of the Senate hearings taken by Bro. Ceci of La Salle: Ceci’s Corner.

And here’s something eloquent by Yogon Multiplies: let’s remember to do the small stuff, too. lovelife?! – eto self supporting! ^_^ writes about school pride.

Thank you to the reader who sent me a copy of this paper: The Integrity of Corrupt States: Graft as an Informal State Institution by Keith Darden. Interesting abstract:

This article argues that corrupt practices such as bribery and embezzlement, which scholars have previously assumed to be evidence of the breakdown of the state, may reinforce the state’s administrative hierarchies under certain conditions. Drawing on a cross-national analysis of 132 countries and a detailed examination of the informal institutions of official graft in Ukraine, the article finds that where graft is systematically tracked, monitored, and granted by state leaders as an informal payment in exchange for compliance, it provides both an added incentive to obey leaders’ directives and the potent sanction of criminal prosecution in the event of disobedience. Where graft is informally institutionalized in this way, it provides the basis for state organizations that are effective at collecting taxes, maintaining public order, and repressing political opposition but that may undermine the development of liberal politics.

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more

Friday, along Ayala. Some people preferred to be at the sidelines.

Office types stood and watched. Marchers congregate.

Office types and families stood at the sidelines. Another view.

Another view. Red Cross volunteers at a first aid station
.
Saturday: as preparations took place, LSGH held its Junior Prom at the gym.

Jun Lozada prepares for the grueling “Harapan” interview (see in on YouTube).

Lozada hooked up for sound; begins his 3-hour confrontation.

Sunday, 7 a.m. Nuns arrive; ushers double-checking plans

Ushers prepare to go to their stations; Nuns survey the gym

Early birds at the gym; venue begins to fill up

mainstream and new media: Mike Enriquez and Dean Jorge Bocobo (see his slideshow of the event!)

Bleachers fill up; participants, old and young

Thomasians in school colors; gym fills up

Scenes from a gym

Mass begins

views of the gym

views of the gym

views of the gym

views of the gym

Fr. Francisco’s homily; with gym and canteen full, people spill over to football field

Field spillover

canteen spillover; singing “Bayan Ko”

Young and old singing “Bayan Ko”

Bleachers singing “Bayan Ko”

Clergy (including Dominicans) and laity singing “Bayan Ko”

As people emerge…

Crowd in the field salutes those who were in the gym and canteen.

The Senate hearings continue, today. See Inquirer.net’s running account of the hearings.

Besides the the best that the administration being able to manage to do, was to crowd a restaurant with officials (and issue panicky warnings), the most interesting thing to me about Friday’s rally and Sunday Mass, was what took place in the sidelines. Friday’s rally was a morale booster for the Left and the UNO, but it also involved workers from Makati offices who dashed down to watch and clap during their breaks and families from what formerly used to be the President’s constituencies, who simply showed up to make the point that henceforth, they intend to be interested and engaged in what’s going on.

These small clusters of people on the sidelines -I am not alone in observing this interesting phenomenon last Friday, see a published e-mail from Fr. Eliseo Mercado- and its flowering on Sunday cared less about what was being said during the rally, and more about simply making a stand in a small way. Some hadn’t shown up at any rallies since 1986; others, since Edsa Dos. Mon Casiple calls it The epiphany of the Middle Class. In the entry, he zeroes in on the significance of this reawakening:

The dramatic street play may or may not come to pass but all political actors are now constrained by the middle class’ political stand.

What does Casiple mean? Observe how some of the Middle Class who went to Makati ended up disillussioned, as Jessica Zafra recounts (see also Patricia Evangelista’s column, Liars); no such worries or fallout from the Sunday Mass, which means this will become the antidote to street-type rallies, since they are more hakot-proof (what is the definition of hakot? Bringing people who neither understand nor care what an issue is about, to a gathering, simply to give the impression of popular participation; this is different from a committed group mobilizing its supporters who share the common cause).

With regards to this, a conversation I had with a professor from UP illustrates what the constraint on the various political groups will be. He came up to me and told me he hadn’t been in any political gathering since Edsa Dos. But he’d gone to the Mass because “it’s just too much, already.” But he said his own preference was for a real, genuine, impeachment in October, in which he saw little rational prospects for the President to be acquitted. And thereafter? “I think it’s clear that Noli could not possibly be worse than what we have now.” But if so? “People will be much more determined not to cut him or anyone that follows any slack.”

Another interesting thing is that sectors formerly deeply divided are gingerly coming closer to healing those divides. The President is a master of fostering divisions but seems weakened in maintaining them.

For example, while UST, which has great sentimental ties to the Macapagals has been largely silent since 2005, on Sunday groups of Thomasians showed up in their school colors and Dominican priests concelebrated the Mass; and while the Assumption Convent continues to express solid support for the President, the people at the Mass let out a gasp when a delegation of Assumption nuns participated in the Mass (not to mention the students, like Assumptionista i am obsess, who defied her school’s ban on student participation in rallies!). A student from La Salle Bacolod (a city where 2,000 had gathered for a mass last Friday) texted me this, a short while ago:

Hi po. Magandang hapon. We the polsci students believe in Lozada. ü

Last Saturday, the Inquirer editorial summed the attitude of such people: “Bring it on”! And on Sunday, the Inquirer editorial (which cites the President’s Friday speech and a Financial Times story) pointed out why the President speaks with a Forked tongue.

Meanwhile, Ricky Carandang says we live in a “Bizarro World.” Indeed, I believe, as my column for today puts it, that This too shall pass. There is the question of the Catholic hierarchy and even clergy’s involvement in the whole issue. See Randy David’s Saturday column, Should bishops lead political actions? Though I must say Fr. Francisco’s homily served as a reminder of the powerful and beneficial role an engaged clergy can play in clarifying things for society, politically.

At the end of my column, I tried to underline a point raised by Mahar Mangahas in his column, Social volcanology. This is the point Mangahas made:

I disagree with those who think that Filipinos have turned numb and no longer feel much social outrage. I sense that much outrage is underground, and can pack as much energy as a volcano…

Both EDSA I and II were brought closer to the surface by mass protest rallies, in 1984-86 and in 2000-01, but they were ultimately triggered by unexpected, highly publicized, events: the Fidel Ramos-Juan Ponce Enrile breakaway in February 1986, and the non-opening of the “second envelope” of evidence in the Joseph Estrada impeachment trial in January 2001. The former was brought to public attention by radio, while the latter was seen live on television by four out of every five Metro Manilans. (In the final stage of the trial, most Filipinos, including those who considered Estrada guilty, said they would respect a Senate decision not to remove him from office. Thus the overkill of the “second envelope” led to Estrada’s downfall.)Of course, the timing of triggering events is unpredictable.

The ability of these events to stimulate mass action is partly due to the public certainty that they were not stage-managed. People Power and volcanic eruptions are equally unpredictable.

The title of today’s entry is taken from Shakespeare, from Henry V (watch the scene in YouTube; had to link as embedding video kept screwing up the layout of this page; or you can read about it in Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more).

Another apt title could be lifted from The simmering pot, in Mon Casiple’s blog. He says a new factor has entered the equation:

The difference today from similar occurrences in 2005 (Garci tapes) and 2006 (state of emergency) is the emerging broad consensus to end the GMA term sooner than 2010. Previous differences among the broad opposition are dissolving in recognition of the widespread unpopularity of the Arroyos and the activism of the middle class. The engine of disenchantment is fueled by middle class discontent (such as over the massive corruption, the rapid weakening of dollar vis-a-vis peso, scarcity in the local job market, GMA Marcosian tactics, and the specter of 2010 elections cancellation and continuing Arroyo rule). Two recent events–the JDV ouster and the Lozada abduction–are being seen by the middle class as indicative of the ruthlessness of the president’s team in their drive to maintain the power. It has led to their defending Lozada and to their manning the frontlines of the movement against GMA.

The great unknown, he says, is not if, but when, the pot boils over:

Is it the tipping point? I don’t think so–yet. However, this particular pot simmers, and if it continues to simmer, will ultimately boil over. The rallies, the masses, the statements, and open positions–all these are but prelude to a great political act by the middle class.
All the ingredients for people power are already in place and there is the momentum. Having said this, they are not yet ripe and are still undergoing the process of maturation. How long this process lasts depends on more events that logically should happen.

My browsers have been groaning under the weight of bookmarks and so I thought I’d present a sampling of different bloggers’ views on what’s going on. Marvelous, indeed, is Scriptorium, who compares 1986 to 2008, and the lessons learned (or ignored) since then:

What is it with the Comelec (komisyon on elections) and its leaders, we ask? We should have learned from 1986, I think, that the structural checks to Presidential power like Congressional impeachment and Comelec supervision don’t work unless they’re backed by institutional tradition as with the Senate and the Supreme Court, or by ideological focus in the case of the Church and the Communist Party. Without a tradition or ideology of independence, officials’ conduct lapses into a pure pragmatism founded on financial interest, which makes the Comelec and the Congress pliable to Executive manipulation.
…This makes us ask: Where are the heroes today who will oppose law with justice, might with right? They are still here, I believe, with different faces and names, the women and men who will defy a dictatorship in the name of truth. Ed Panlilio, beleaguered by cash-armed opponents using the oh-so-honest Comelec to get their hands on Pampanga’s cookie jar; the Hyatt 10, the Kapatiran leaders, and numerous others who left their government posts (in Atty. Harry Roque’s case, an ultra-plum PCSO directorship) to protest the fraud perpetrated the Arroyo Autocracy. Some, like De Venecia and Jun Lozada, are johnnies-come-lately who defected through force of circumstance; but, as the lives of Boethius and St. Alphonsus Liguori demonstrate, even those with initially imperfect motives may become heroes at the time of testing.

A general roundup can be found in Global Voices Online. A big deal? A Simple Life thinks not: and wishes it would all go away.

On a vaguely related note, see the amusing take on the scandal-as-drama courtesy of paolomendoza.

On a precisely related note, with all the large numbers being mentioned, DAKILA breaks them down. Read the relevant numbers and weep.

It’s interesting how people have been following the Senate hearings. See My Life and Inspirations (Feb. 8), Take it Easy, Smile (Feb. 11) who feels overhwelmed, and Sabistski Point (Feb. 12),while [slap happy] .an OFW (Feb 10) says the whole thing is fascinating and urges people to follow the hearings and make up their own minds. AKOMISMO Vol. II is using the whole thing as a teaching aid. the in’s and out’s of the twisted mind of the nomadic asian polar bear says it may sow the seeds for change (Spendor of Creation on Feb. 7, called it the need for “positive politics”). Law and ICT reflects on government projects in general. As does Lofty Quest.

There is, first of all, the question of Jun Lozada (who originally irritated My Croak). You can’t beat the extended Star Wars-based analysis (see Sylvia Mayuga, too) by big mango:

What was Yoda to do if he won his contest against Palpatine? Palpatine and his Sith Order had adapted. Yoda knew at that moment that Palpatine’s Sith Order had turned war into a weapon and that the Jedi still fought the Sith Order as if they were an army to be destroyed. It was why the Jedi failed. People didn’t want the Jedi. They wanted the Sith Order to rule. They wanted “peace, order, security.”

Yoda could have “won” that contest against Palpatine and in the processes would have become the very thing he fought against. He would have had to become Emperor himself and the turn the Republic into a Jedi Empire. How would that theocracy be better than a Sith one? Theocracy, Yoda knew was not the way.

People who wanted change had to fight for what they believed in and the Jedi should not be above them— but along side of them. In many ways those who want change and I count myself amongst that rank, we need to reinvent the way we strive for change. Reinvent how to fight war, just as the Jedi did. The romantic notion of street protests alone as a path to change is no longer enough. What must accompany it is a groundswell of effort.

A lot of people are asking why Congressmen who side with Arroyo still hold their jobs. The short answer is because good men and women don’t rise up to challenge them.

In Star Wars lore, the Sith people went extinct. not just because of constant war, but because the Dark Lords had interbred with the Sith. As our country is constantly led by people who value treachery, greed and lust for power, so too will most people adapt to those concepts as being the norm.

Also, people have taken to discussing Lozada in terms of his writing. There was his piece on Neri’s attitudes, (incidentally, Atty-at-Work quotes a comment appended to the piece, concerning one effect of the OFW phenomenon: detaching people from engagement in the political system) nd there is another piece, which people have taken to titling Mindsets of Inaction (I first saw the piece in village idiot savant; the piece has been endorsed by Lozada’s own nephew, so I take it as an endorsement of its being genuine), as discussed by former priest Ed dela Torre in his blog entry, A Peek into Jun Lozada’s Mind. A previous entry by dela Torre, Reinterpreting Rizal’s Ideas in 2008 is equally interesting, in which he probes Lozada’s keen interest in Rizal.

A radical offering up a glimpse into another’s radical thoughts, is, I think, something that requires reflection. The radical is dismissive of the limits imposed by the status quo, viewing those limits with neither affection nor veneration. This explains why a radical can be deeply embedded in the system, claiming to hold on to idealistic notions while being part of the system’s sins of omission and commission. This is why Lozada can preach love of country today, yet been found to be implicated in the wrongdoings of officials.

Lefthandledlayup (Feb. 11) says Lozada has no real friends. Tingog.com doesn’t think Lozada is hero, but he has the chance for redemption. Viloria.com suggests this, too.

Lester Cavestany identifies three crucial questions:

1) How come there are people who are not disturbed by Lozada’s testimony in the ongoing Senate hearing about the ZTE-NBN scandal?2) Why were there so many high-profile people who tried to stop Lozada from testifying in the Senate?3) Where do we go from here?
Strangely enough, I found my answers in studies made on battered women.

Those who express support for him (and the reasons why) ranges from a government worker, Irish’s Site (Feb. to coffeeLover::::brattygurL (Feb. 11) to i like taho for breakfast (Feb. 12) to a slice of wine.. and a shot of cake.. to a Thomasian, Planet Earl ; for a post-mortem on Lozada’s Saturday evening grilling, see smoke (royally pissed off), live.laugh.sparkle (who felt the opposite way) to Leslie’s Crazy World!!! who heard about it from her mother, and (apropos to those who think Lozada has a point, but bring it to court, like Ang Pagbabagong Buhay) see Uniffors:

To Golez, who said let the courts decide, Lozada said we have a legal system but we have no justice system.

While those who continue to harbor doubts, ranges from Iniibig ko ang Pilipinas! (Feb. to smoke (Feb. 13; yes two citings in this entry: she’s been on a roll); (among columnists those swinging from caution, to initial support, then swinging back to hostility because their close friends are affected includes Solita Monsod; on the other hand, columnists like John Nery say: be conscious of the nuances).

And there are those who express outright skepticism or hostility, from Beauty in the Breakdown to and Phoenix Eyrie, Reloaded (February 9).
A foreigner’s point of view: Torn & Frayed (Feb. 10):

I can’t see all this going anywhere. The Senate can expose the administration’s failings as much as it likes but an impeachment motion has to begin in the House and last Monday’s ousting of the Speaker by the pro-Malacañang block indicates that the president’s control over that body is stronger than ever. Lozada’s explosive testimony reminds me of Perfecto Yasay’s during the BW scandal all those years ago: explosive, but too far from the real center of power to prove fatal. Only when Gloria meets her Chavit—when someone in the inner circle finally turns the screw—will we see a “For rent” sign outside the palace.

There, too, is the decline and fall of Joker Arroyo: (though there are exceptions: Brown Monkey Theory said Joker made sense, too) particularly his fall in reputation as expressed by young people like memento and miss_choi, and lawyer marichu lambino, also, achacs den while faculty like USLS CAS Faculty Issues and Advocacies pointed out,

Joker Arroyo unwittingly hit on the truth when he asked Jun Lozada to explain why he didn’t go to London, as indicated in his travel request form, when he was already in Hong Kong. When Jun Lozada tried to explain that he never really intended to go to London (he didn’t even have a visa) and that his bosses knew about this Joker almost shouted and said “What your telling us that all these government officials are in conspiracy with you!” Hello Senator Arroyo, are you there sir?” Senator Arroyo, who used to be my idol, is certainly losing it. He must have been the only one in that room who didn’t know that yes, all of them from Litong Lito and Defensor, to Atty. Bautista (barred from teaching in UP and Ateneo for some kind of a misdemeanour involving a female student kuno), to Razon and Defensor, all of them were in a conspiracy to keep the truth about the NBN-ZTE deal from the Filipino people.

Snippets contrasts Lozada, on the other hand, with Miriam Defensor Santiago (see also Insert Foot in Mouth!). A contrasting view from Mad Musings of a Matabang Mama from Muntinlupa. Then again, Thirtysomething v.4.3 was unimpressed by Mad Miriam. 3sa doesn’t like the senators, period.

As for the question of Friday’s rally (lots of nifty pictures, by the way: see i will be a hot dancer, and Shooting for God’s Glory, Reggie… or NOT!, Nina’s Life Chronicled, as well as Wish You Were Here, and Oh Mickey you’re so fine you’re so fine…,) in Philippines Without Borders he was surprised to hear, on Thursday, that middle class office types intended to go.There’s this account by The Warrior’s World, who participated, having last taken part in a rally in the 1980s:

Today, I decided to make a stand and be counted. Even for a short while, I joined the crowd at the corner of Ayala and Paseo. Though i miss the fervor, the hysteria and the intensity of rallies in the 80s, i am glad i was there. kakaiba naman kasi talaga noon…

The wind of change is blowing… i was surprised to see that the crowd earlier where not your usual rallyista. there were expats, yuppies, makati executives. They were there, mingling with the masa.

The numbers may not be that huge, but at least i saw for myself there was something different.

There are those who expressed support, and were fairly pleased with the results. See and Half-swing (who likes the fact the politicians took the hint and didn’t make themselves the center of attention). Only God Can Judge Me comes out swinging at the rally’s critics.
And those who express opposition to the idea of rallies: see some are students, see wonderstricken: waking up creativity and A million girls would kill for my waistline.

As well as outright indifference: see LittleMisssPerplexed and paperchimes.net. Or who believe there are valid points raised by rallies but who, like Musings of a Media Strategist turned Retirement Strategist, who simply feels unworthy to be there. Steadiness… hates rallies because he thinks you should simply shoot all the crooks. Celebrating Life’s Journeys didn’t like the rally but offered up a prayer for Lozada.

Concerning Sunday’s mass,prior to it, Philippine Commentary has a bitch fight with Manoling Morato; leading up to it while ...strawberry-filled donuts… (Lozada’s nephew) was depressed, then cheered up; there are eyewitness accounts from SamutSari and Torn & Frayed (who also takes stock of the President’s situation), as well as Blood Sky, who said it best:

Day after day after day of hearing nothing but bad news, of hearing nothing but lies and cover-ups, of divisions, of graft and corruption, of killings and robberies, in this one morning, I saw and felt, unity. Under the roof of that gym, I saw and felt people of various walks of life from various sectors of society, just throw away the lines that clearly divide each of them, and come together to support a good man, a man who had the courage to just stand up to all of the farce, to all the deception and the coercion and just speak out the truth.

That kind of intense feeling burns deep in you when you experience it first hand. Even more when you see that everybody around you responds to it, accepts it and allows it to make them free. That’s how I felt the entire time, and even more so, near the tail end of the celebration, when they played “Bayan Ko”, and I saw the entire gym, myself included, raise our right fists up the air, as we sang that song, all the while feeling a chill down my spine as I heard every single one in the gym (well maybe not the younger generation who did not reach or have the opportunity to appreciate the song) sing with their hearts, sing with all passion.

I have seen many calls for change in this country. I too have taken let that call flow out of my mind, heart and mouth before. I wrote before that it does require a revolution to start change in this country. But it is not the revolution that a lot may mistake it to be. The Philippine society, not just the government and our leaders, but all of us, from the bottom all the way up, need to do a major examination of ourselves, and undertake the painful task of removing/changing all the deeply entrenched nuances and behaviors that we possess that cause our nation to deteriorate. These problems go way beyond the issue of corrupt officials. We can remove each and every one of these named perpetrators, remove every one in the current bureaucracy, even change the platform and type of our government. But if the behaviors, the nuances and the dysfunctional and distorted beliefs and ideals remain the same, then all those changes won’t mean anything. It’s just the same cycle all over again, with a new face plastered over the old one. SAME SHIT, DIFFERENT COLOR.

Change has to start somewhere. And if it isn’t apparent to the higher-ups, who somehow still continue to delude themselves into thinking that everything is peachy-keen, that everything is just fine and dandy, well let another concerned Filipino citizen add to that call. WAKE THE FUCK UP, IDIOTS!! Your shit has hit the fan and we all know its you guys. Everything’s over but the shouting. We’re all tired of the charade that all of you continue to put before us. We just want to go on with our lives, working hard to earn our keep, paying our dues without having to worry so much about our lives getting fucked over.

A very interesting observation, about the way people raised their fists during the singing of “Bayan Ko” during the Mass, from stuart-santiago:

…the singing of bayan ko, brought goose pimples. what a rare sight. the church-going middle-class with fists raised, many with great gusto, some self-consciously, and a few who just wouldn’t, or couldn’t, yet. oh, and one who flashed the L (laban) sign instead. never mind, they’ll get around to it, once they’re mad enough, and engaged enough, in the struggle for nation.

so is this a triumph for the communist left, that the raised fist has become the signal, too, of middle-class resistance? i think not. i think it’s mostly just the appeal of that palaban posture — it feels right (never mind that it’s left) and feels appropriate to the situation, as in dramatic and fraught with tension. ideologically, however, the middle-class is more rejectionist (RJ) than reaffirmative (RA) of joma sison, which is a great divide.

so how do we tell them apart, the true leftists from the bourgeois middle-class? i’m not sure about RJs, but certainly RAs raise left fists, burgis churchgoers raise the right.

A reflection, too, from filling in the blanks. And opposition to it from +livin’ lovin’ mania+ who says Lozada’s playing God, and Idiosyncratic Philosophy Leading to Infinity ; while are indifferent.

Then on the question of the President (who inspired a poem written by Chances in the Starlight) of whom The Write Stuff says the problem is her husband and kids. For all summers disease it’s a case of first things first: first the President, then the rest. But Spring Roll thinks all the right stuff are missing, thoughts echoed by Bong Austero who says this:

Let me get this clear: This administration is hopelessly corrupt beyond redemption and the sooner we get rid of these people, the better. But it’s not just these people. And removing this administration, and mainly by embarrassing and ridiculing it—which, also harms business and ourselves—should not be the only goal. A major reason why this administration is still in power is because most think that the people who are itching to replace this administration are doing so mainly for personal political gain. That may not be entirely true, but that’s the message people are getting. A taxi driver I talked to said it well: Better the thief that has been unmasked and has seemingly no pretensions of being moral than the people who claim to be imbued with stronger moral fiber.

But I have to ask: is he casting the net so wide, that it guarantees even the whales wriggle right on through? This extract from Brown SEO says it all:

This friend of mine which we shall name Tin and I had a heated debate on the capacity of the current government to govern its people that we began comparing the misgivings of one government to the other starting with the one deposed by the current regime.

Tin said: “Erap was tactless and other than being corrupt he was arrogantly corrupt. He was so arrogant that he even wags his corruption in front of his underlings. He wags his misdemeanors in front of his Military Generals… Imagine, he was supposed to attend a military parade to inspect the troops and he comes in a few hours because he was dead drunk the night before and he was complaining of a hang-over… they lost respect for Erap bringing him his own downfall. GMA inspite of her corruption she was well meaning to hide them under the table to keep them from the publics scrutinizing eyes… She was well bred enough to keep her slimy hands inside her pockets while Erap was not.”

To which I replied: “And so because GMA is able-bodied to keep her dead in her closet and she’s really good at that you would still permit her to stay in power? Don’t you think we should be more careful of her because of that? We never know perhaps one day it’s your family’s carcass inside that closet as well as our country’s well being.”

I understand her point well. As if saying that being able to hide ones own evil is a skill or a taste of genius, or to vehemently proclaim justice and yet get away with ones own farce is considered gifted in the realm of politics.

And this reflection, by bitchology 101, who is a nursing student:

it just made me wonder how the people in our government can tolerate hundreds or million dollar corruption when the people they are supposed to be serving couldn’t even manage to have a life decent enough. it made me contemplate again, having such kind of public officials, will there still be hope for this country? coz I’m starting to fear for my own future too.

my friends and i have been talking about that for some time now. Normal for soon to be graduates, i guess. we’re just thinking of the P70,ooo+ our parents spent solely for this sem, and the P15,000 they still have to provide for us when we review in summer. we were disillusioned by the belief that we can start working by the end of this year already(that is if we passed the board) and then we can start earning back all the money spent for our uber expensive education. but we were greatly disappointed upon learning that our monthly allowance today is even higher that the salary that we will be having as nurses. Add the fact that it’s so hard to look for a job these days, that is according to some our co-tams from the higher batches. so i guess it will really take time before i can be able to give back to my fam, and even much more time before i can finally work abroad. i still have a decade or at least half a decade to spend and to suffer here in Pinas. sigh.

it’s too bad that we’re still 2 years away from the 2010 elections. just like what’s been said in the news in chan7, there seems to be a “people power fatigue” coz more Pinoys are now apathetic of what’s happening. cant blame them. nakakasawa naman talaga. paulit-ulit lang, wala naman ding nangyayari. parang red bull si GMA eh, ang bumangga giba. punyeta. bleh.
oh well, what else can we do but go on with our lives right? and i guess pray, pray hard for a miracle. ganyan talaga ang buhay Pinoy. miserable but still nice in a lot of weird ways.

Finally, here are today’s readings.

First, the Sunday homily of Fr. Manoling Francisco, S.J. He differentiates legal truth from the truth necessary to reach conclusions about an administration’s fitness to govern:

RECLAIMING OUR HUMANITY
MASS FOR JUN LOZADA
LA SALLE GYMNASIUM, GREENHILLS
17 FEBRUARY 2008
Fr. Manoling Francisco, S.J.

On this Second Sunday of Lent, during which we are asked to reflect on the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ, I wish to touch on three themes that have to do with our moral transformation as a people: first, Ascertaining Credibility; second, Rediscovering our Humanity; and third, Witnessing to the Truth. In so doing, I hope to invite all of you to reflect more deeply on how we, as a nation, might respond to the present political crisis in which our identity and ethos, our convictions and integrity, in fact, who we are as a people, are at stake.

I. ASCERTAINING CREDIBILITY

Jun, as Sen. Miriam Santiago has grilled you to ascertain your credibility (or was it to undermine your credibility?), allow me to raise some important questions to consider in the very process of discerning your credibility. Allow me to do so by drawing on my own counseling experience.

Very often, a young rape victim initially suppresses his or her awful and painful story, indeed wills to forget it, in the hope that by forgetting, he or she can pretend it never happened. But very often, too, there comes a point when concealing the truth becomes unbearable, and the desperate attempts to supposedly preserve life and sanity become increasingly untenable.

At this point the victim of abuse decides to seek help. But even after having taken this step, the victim, devastated and confused, will tell his or her story with much hesitation and trepidation. It should be easy to imagine why. In telling the truth, one risks casting shame on himself or herself, subjecting oneself to intense scrutiny and skepticism, and jeopardizing one’s safety and those of his or her loved ones, especially when one dares to go up against an older or more powerful person.

Similarly, it is easy to imagine why Jun would initially refuse to challenge the might of Malacanang. Who in his or her right mind would accuse Malacanang of crimes against our people and implicate the First Family in a sordid tale of greed and corruption, knowing that by doing so, one endangers one’s life and the lives of his or her loved ones? We are, after all, living in dangerous times, where the government has not hesitated to use everything in its power to keep itself in power, where it has yet to explain and solve the numerous cases of extra-judicial killings.

But Jun is in his right mind. His story rings true especially in the face of the perils that he has had to face. And by his courage, Jun has also shown that it is not only that he is in his right mind; his heart is also in the right place.

Hence, my personal verdict: Jun, I believe that you are a credible witness. And if hundreds have gathered here this morning, it is probably because they also believe in you. Mga kapatid, naniniwala ba kayo kay Jun Lozada? Naniniwala ba kayo sa kanyang testimonya? Kung gayon, palakpakan po natin ang Probinsyanong Intsik, si Mr. Jun Lozada.

Jun, we hope that by our presence here, you may find some consolation. Pope Benedict XVI writes that “con-solatio” or consolation means “being with the other in his or her solitude, so that it ceases to be solitude.” Jun, be assured that your solitude is no longer isolation as we profess our solidarity with you. Hindi ka nag-iisa. We are committed to stay the course and to do our best to protect you and your family and the truth you have proclaimed.

II. REDISCOVERING OUR HUMANITY

What makes Jun a credible witness to us?

I think Jun is credible not simply by virtue of his being an eyewitness to the unmitigated greed of some of our public officials. Perhaps more importantly, Jun is credible because he has witnessed to us what it means to be truly human.

Which leads me to my second theme: What does it mean to be human? How might we rediscover our humanity?

Allow me to quote Pope Benedict XVI, who in his latest encyclical, Spe Salvi, has written: “the capacity to accept suffering for the sake of goodness, truth and justice is an essential criterion of humanity, because if my own well-being and safety are ultimately more important than truth and justice, then the power of the stronger prevails, then violence and untruth reign supreme. Truth and justice must stand above my comfort and physical well-being, or else my life becomes a lie. . . For this … we need witnesses—martyrs …. We need them if we are to prefer goodness to comfort, even in the little choices we face each day.”

Our Holy Father concludes, “the capacity to suffer for the sake of the truth is the measure of humanity.”

Isn’t this the reason we emulate our martyrs: Jose Rizal, Gomburza, Evelio Javier, Macli-ing Dulag, Cesar Climaco and Ninoy Aquino? They have borne witness for us what it means to be truly human—to be able to suffer for the sake of others and for the sake of the truth.

I remember Cory recalling a conversation she had with Ninoy while they were in exile in Boston. Cory asked Ninoy what he thought might happen to him once he set foot in Manila. Ninoy said there were three possibilities: one, that he would be rearrested and detained once more in Fort Bonifacio; two, that he would be held under house arrest; and three, that he would be assassinated.

“Then why go home?” Cory asked.

To which Ninoy answered: “Because I cannot allow myself to die a senseless death, such as being run over by a taxi cab in New York. I have to go home and convince Ferdinand Marcos to set our people free.”

Witnessing to one’s deepest convictions, notwithstanding the consequences, is the measure of our humanity. Proclaiming the truth to others, whatever the cost, is the mark of authentic humanity.

Jun, we know you have feared for your life and continue to do so. But in transcending your fears for yourself and your family, you have reclaimed your humanity. And your courage and humility, despite harassment and calumniation by government forces, embolden us to retrieve and reclaim our humanity tarnished by our cowardice and complicity with sin in the world. You have inspired us to be true to ourselves and to submit to and serve the truth that transcends all of us.

III. WITNESSING TO THE TRUTH

This leads us to our third and last theme: witnessing to the truth. In his encyclical, Pacem in Terris, Pope John XXIII exhorts that it is the fundamental duty of the government to uphold the truth: “A political society is to be considered well-ordered, beneficial and in keeping with human dignity if it grounded on truth.” Moreover, the encyclical explains that unless a society is anchored on the truth, there can be no authentic justice, charity and freedom.

Every government is therefore obliged to serve the truth if it is to truly serve the people. Its moral credibility and authority over a people is based on the extent of its defense of and submission to the truth. Insofar as a government is remiss in upholding the truth, insofar as a government actively suppresses the truth, it loses its authority vested upon it by the people.

At this juncture, allow me to raise a delicate question: At what point does an administration lose its moral authority over its constituents?

First, a clear tipping point is the surfacing of hard evidence signifying undeniable complicity of certain government officials in corruption and injustice, evidence that can be substantiated in court.

Hence, during the Marcos Regime, the manipulation of Snap Election results as attested to by the tabulators who walked out of the PICC was clear evidence of the administration’s disregard for and manipulation of the collective will of the people in order to remain in power..

During the Erap Administration, the testimony of Clarissa Ocampo, claiming that Pres. Erap had falsified Equitable Bank documents by signing as Jose Velarde, was the smoking gun that triggered the rage of our people.

Allow me to respond to the same question by pursue an alternative track of argument: an administration loses it moral authority over its people when it fails in its fundamental duty to uphold the truth, when it is constituted by an ethos of falsehood. When a pattern of negligence in investigating the truth, suppressing the truth and harassing those who proclaim the truth is reasonably established, then a government, in principle, loses its right to rule over and represent the people.

Regarding negligence: Do the unresolved cases, such as the the failed automation of the national elections, the fertilizer scam, the extra-judicial killings, and the “Hello, Garci” scandal, constitute negligence on the part of the GMA Administartion to probe and ferret out the truth?

Regarding covering-up the truth: Does the abduction of Jun Lozada and the twisting and manipulation of his narrative by Malacanang’s minions constitute concealment of the truth? Was the padlocking of the office of Asst. Gov’t Counsel Gonzales who testified before the Senate regarding the North Rail project anomaly an instance of covering-up the truth?

Regarding the suppression of the truth: Does the issuance and implementation of E.O. 464, which prevents government officals from testifying in Senate hearings without Malacanang’s permission, constitute suppression of the truth? Was the prevention of AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Senga and six other officers from testifying before the Senate with regard the “Hello, Garci” scandal tantamount to a suppression of the truth? Was disallowing Brig. Gen. Quevedo, Lt. Col Capuyan and Lt. Col. Sumayo from appearing before the Lower House an instance of hindering the truth from surfacing?

And regarding harassment of those who proclaim the truth: Are the abduction of Jun Lozada and the decision to court-marshall Gen. Gudani and Col. Balutan for disregarding Malacanang’s order not to testify before the Senate examples of punishing those who come forth to tell the truth?

By conflating one’s responses to all these questions does one arrive not at hard evidence showing culpapility on the part of some government officials, but a ghestalt, an image which nonetheless demands our assessment and judgment. I invite all of you then to consider these two methods of evaluating and judging the moral credibility of any government, the moral credibility of our present government.

Allow me to end with a few words about an Ignatian virtue, familiaritas cum Deo. To become familiar with God involves the illumination of the intellect, coming to know who God is and what God wills. But it also involves the conversion of the affect, the reconfiguration of the heart. Becoming familiar with God entails trasforming and conforming my thinking, my feeling and my doing in accordance to the Lord’s, which can only be the work of grace.

Familiarity with God thus entail rejoicing in what God delights—the truth; abhoring what God detests—falsehood; being pained by what breaks the heart of God—the persecution of truth-seekers. Familiary with God means sharing the passion of God for the truth and the pathos of God whenever the truth and the bearers of truth are overcome by the forces of the lie.

On this Second Sunday of Lent, as we contemplate the transfiguration of Jesus Christ on Mount Horeb, we pray that our hearts and minds be so transfigured and so conformed to the mind, heart and will of the Jesus, our way, our life, and our truth.

May the Lord bless and protect you, Jun, and your family. May the Lord bless and guide us all into the way of truth. Amen.

Second, the statement issued by former members of the cabinet, etc. for other officials to come forward (for background, see Calls for Arroyo, Cabinet members to resign mount and Ex-Cabinet men ask Arroyo officials in telecoms deal to resign):

TIME TO GO: A CALL TO OUR COLLEAGUES IN GOVERNMENT

We are former government officials who have held high positions in the current and previous administrations. Having participated in the highest level of governance up close and personal, we now feel compelled to speak up for our demoralized public servants and arrest the decline of our institutions of governance. In the past, many of us kept quiet, going on about our daily chores, attending to business as usual.

However, over the last few days, we, together with the rest of the country, have seen one man – Jun Lozada – finally decide that he can no longer be part of the massive graft and corruption that permeates this government. His testimony exposed that the corruption in the project he dealt with – the NBN ZTE project – is standard in what he called “dysfunctional government procurement processes.”

Clearly, what Jun Lozada knew so terrified the powers-that-be that they unwittingly exposed what Jun called “the dark side of the state” – state-sponsored terrorism that had been rearing its ugly head in the various disappearances and extra-judicial killings in the past six years – and which almost took him as a victim in a botched kidnapping that the administration has been trying, with little success, to cover up.

In a sense, all Jun Lozada did was to confirm what we already know: Our country is sliding into moral decadence. He also confirmed the systematic destruction of our democratic institutions and the systemic nature of our problems. We have seen this in the wanton disregard of checks-and-balances; abuse of the powers of the President; the cooptation through patronage and outright bribery of the other branches of government; politically sponsored corruption, facilitated, not thwarted, by bureaucratic procedures; the naked use of power and authority through the PNP, PSG, NAIA, among others, to strangle the truth; and the deployment of cabinet, sub-cabinet officials, and the military to obstruct justice and cover up illegal orders and acts.

In the past, for too many times that we were confronted with threats to our democracy and to our moral values, our response was: “What can we do about it? What is our choice? Who will lead us?”

These questions persist but, today, we can no longer stay silent. We can no longer ignore the reality of a government gone wild, wreaking havoc on our rights and institutions in a climate of impunity. We can no longer console ourselves in the strength of the peso, narrowing deficits, and an expanding economy. Even these ephemeral gains have not translated into a better life for the majority of our people, especially the poor.

The future of our country is at stake. Our democratic institutions are under attack. What we stand to lose is the moral fabric of our society.

We call on all government officials – Cabinet Secretaries, Undersecretaries, Heads of Agencies – who know about these anomalous transactions to join the heroic stand of Jun Lozada to come forward and speak out. We call on all those who know about the extrajudicial killings and disappearances to go public and tell the truth. We call on all those who can no longer endure this wrongful governance, with its structures of evil and unmoderated greed: IT IS TIME TO CUT CLEAN! IT IS TIME TO GO! .

Tama na! Sobra na! Panahon na!

Signed by:
1. Florencio Abad (Former Secretary of Education)
2. Tomas Africa, (Former Administrator, National Statistics Office)
3. Rafael Alunan III (Former Secretary of Tourism)
4. Tomas Apacible (Former Commissioner of Customs)
5. Senen Bacani (Former Secretary of Agriculture)
6. Angelito Banayo (Former Secretary of Political Affairs)
7. Romeo Bernardo (Former Undersecretary of Finance)
8. Gerardo Bulatao (Former Undersecretary of Agrarian Reform)
9. Clifford Burkley (Former Undersecretary of Social Welfare and Development)
10. Ramon Cardenas (Former Head of the Presidential Management Staff)
11. Jose Cuisia (Former Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas)
12. Sostenes Campillo (Former Undersecretary of Tourism)
13. Karina Constantino-David (Former Chairman of the Civil Service Commission)
14. Elfren Cruz (Former Head of the Presidential Management Staff)
15. Isagani Cruz (Former Undersecretary of Education)
16. Teresita Quintos Deles (Former Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process)
17. Benjamin Diokno (Former Secretary of Budget and Management)
18. Quintin Doromal Sr. (Former Commissioner, Presidential Commission on Good Governance)
19. Franklin Drilon (Former Executive Secretary)
20. Narcisa Escaler (Former Ambassador to the United Nations)
21. Jesus Estanislao (Former Secretary of Finance)
22. Fulgencio Factoran Jr. (Former Secretary of the Environment and Natural Resources)
23. Victoria Garchitorena (Former Head of the Presidential Management Staff)
24. Ernesto Garilao (Former Secretary of Agrarian Reform)
25. Peter Garrucho (Former Executive Secretary)
26. Jose Luis Gascon (Former Undersecretary of Education)
27. Marietta Goco (Former Chairman of the Presidential Commission to Fight Poverty)
28. Jose Antonio Gonzalez (Former Minister of Tourism)
29. Milwilda Guevarra (Former Undersecretary of Finance)
30. Cielito Habito (Former Secretary-General of the National Economic Development Authority)
31. Edilberto de Jesus Jr. (Former Secretary of Education)
32. Philip Ella Juico (Former Secretary of Agrarian Reform)
33. Antonio La Viña (Former Undersecretary of the Environment and Natural Resources)
34. Bienvenido Laguesma (Former Secretary of Labor and Employment)
35. Lina Laigo (Former Secretary of Social Welfare and Development)
36. Ernest Leung (Former Secretary of Finance)
37. Josefina Lichauco (Former Secretary of Transportation and Communications)
38. Narzalina Lim (Former Secretary of Tourism)
39. Juan Miguel Luz (Former Undersecretary of Education)
40. Felipe Medalla (Former Secretary-General of the National Economic Development Authority)
41. Jose Molano Jr. (Former Executive Director of the Commission on Filipinos Overseas)
42. Vitaliano Nañagas (Former Chairman of the Development Bank of the Philippines)
43. Imelda Nicolas (Former Lead Convenor of the National Anti-Poverty Commission)
44. Roberto de Ocampo (Former Secretary of Finance)
45. Oscar Orbos (Former Executive Secretary)
46. Ernesto Ordoñez (Former Secretary of Presidential Flagship Programs and Projects)
47. Victor Ordoñez (Former Undersecretary of Education)
48. Cayetano Paderanga (Former Secretary-General of the National Economic Development Authority)
49. Jose Pardo (Former Secretary of Trade and Industry)
50. Vicente Paterno (Former Minister of Trade and Industry)
51. Felicito Payumo (Former Chairman of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority)
52. Pete Prado (Former Secretary of Transportation and Communication)
53. Cesar Purisima (Former Secretary of Finance)
54. Victor Ramos (Former Secretary of the Environment and Natural Resources)
55. Amina Rasul (Former Chairman of the National Youth Commission)
56. Alberto Romualdez Jr. (Former Secretary of Health)
57. Albert del Rosario (Former Ambassador to the United States of America)
58. Francisco del Rosario (Former Chairman of the Development Bank of the Philippines)
59. Ramon del Rosario (Former Secretary of Finance)
60. Melito Salazar (Former Member of the Monetary Board, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas)
61. Leticia Ramos-Shahani (Former Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs)
62. Cesar Sarino (Former Secretary of the Interior and Local Government)
63. Juan Santos (Former Secretary of Trade and Industry)
64. Corazon Juliano-Soliman (Former Secretary of Social Welfare and Development)
65. Hector Soliman (Former Undersecretary of Agrarian Reform)
66. Mario Taguiwalo (Former Undersecretary of Health)
67. Jaime Galvez Tan (Former Secretary of Health)
68. Wigberto Tañada (Former Commissioner of Customs)
69. Rene Villa (Former Secretary of Agrarian Reform)
70. Veronica Villavicencio (Former Lead Convenor of the National Anti-Poverty Commission)
71. Deogracias Vistan (Former President of the Land Bank of the Philippines)

And finally, the statement of the Catholic Educators Association of the Philippines, calling on member schools to engage their students in efforts to understand what’s going on:

Speaking Truth, Seeking Justice
Setting Things Right
CEAP on the Events of our Time
February 14, 2008

“No lie can live forever,” said Carlyle. “Truth, crushed to earth, will rise again,” added William Cullen Bryant. And forty years ago, Martin Luther King cried:

On some positions,
Cowardice asks the question, “Is it safe?”
Expediency asks the question, “Is it politic?”
Vanity asks the question, “Is it popular?”
But Conscience asks the question, “Is it right?”

There comes a time when one must take a position
that is neither safe nor politic nor popular;
but one must take it
because Conscience says, “It is right.”

Following his conscience, Rodolfo Lozada Jr. these days has revealed possible corruption in the handling of government contracts. His confession has stirred memories of other allegations by other people of graft and greed in government, and is shaking the souls of many to speak and act in response.

What of us, the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP), an association of 1,252 schools, colleges, and universities with at least 2 million students and around 120,000 school personnel and faculty?

We too must speak, we too must act. For, as the same Martin Luther King continued, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent on things that matter.”

Silent then we must not be or must no longer be, if once we were. May not our lives end but rather begin in a special way this Valentine’s Day. Beyond the love we are expected to declare for the persons of our hearts, is the love for the people of our country that we are invited to express in this time of crisis in our land. Mere bystanders we cannot just be but active participants in the continuous task of shaping our nation’s life. In the words of Vaclav Havel, “By perceiving ourselves as part of the river, we take responsibility for the river as a whole.”

For those of us who know the truth, we pray for the courage to speak it. For those who seek justice, we pray for humility in the pursuit, personal integrity in the quest, respect for others involved in the search. For those of us who must judge and act on what we see and hear, we pray for fairness and the will to make the good triumph over evil in a way that removes the bad, without the act leading to what is even worse.

In tandem with the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) we invite our member schools and their constituents, our alumni and friends individually and communally to pray for guidance on what to do in these times of tension and difficulty. We ask our administrators, faculty, and students to bring to the fore the issues of the day, discuss in humility and decide in fortitude and love what we must do together as a people in the different parts of the country where we are.

We must seek to discover the educative moment and the lesson for life in the investigation sessions and in the rallies and other mass actions we may join. To our country and the world we must show and say that we will not allow dishonesty, corruption, indifference or neglect to rule our lives. We must look into ourselves and ensure that what we decry in others we do not do ourselves.

We should pledge to continue to teach and live truth, honesty and integrity in our own schools so that when our graduates leave us they bring with them not just skills and knowledge but wisdom and love to inspire and change the world.

To this end, we link up with other groups sincerely searching for truth and justice. We encourage the establishment of truth centers in our schools so that our students, teachers, and staff are led to continuing awareness, reflection, and formation toward social-political engagement. We invite our members to support the sanctuary fund set up by the Association of Major Religious Superiors of the Philippines (AMRSP). We support the signature campaign demanding the implementation of the Supreme Court’s decision junking Executive Order 464 so that the search for truth is not hindered or compromised.

Jesus, the Way, the Truth, and the Life we shall continue to ask to lead us, accompany and comfort us in all we need to do. It is He, after all, who will truly set us free. The Holy Spirit we ask to enlighten us so that our external actions flow from inner harmony of heart. We remember the words of Will Durant: “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.” So we ask our Heavenly Father for the grace that we never neglect but ever firm up the moral fiber of our souls.

Our anger at the wrong and sinful things in and around us may we not allow to make of ourselves men and women of violence. We take to heart the thought of Martin Luther King: “The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence, you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”

May our light dispel our darkness, may our love melt whatever hatred may lurk within. But in this Kairos moment, this time of grace, we, the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines, with all men and women of good will, in our nation and in the world, in the name of the Lord, by the grace of His Spirit, in concert and in communion call on ourselves and one another to – speak the truth, seek justice and work to set things right.

CEAP National Board of Directors

Next Page »