The President has announced she will not attend the Philippine Military Academy homecoming this weekend (because of a startling coincidence involving assassinations plots) . She is in a mess of her own making, and which requires loyalty at a time when her officials have to wonder if it’s worth it to lose all, for her. Read Tony Abaya’s column to understand why Jun Lozada has engaged the sympathy of many people and why government’s resources have failed to impeach his credibility.
As Mon Casiple muses,
The instruction of the president for government to work with private business sector, academe and Church in the anti-corruption work and the sudden interest of the Ombudsman and DOJ in the ZTE-NBN case aim to seize initiative in the issue. The NBI raid on Lozada’s office, on the other hand, is more in the same league as the failed discrediting of Lozada for corruption.
Many top officials in the GMA administration have been put on the spot, had their reputation besmirched, or are in danger of prosecution themselves because of their actions in defense of the Arroyo family. They are under intense pressure from their own families, friends, and peers to stand for truth and decency on the issues confronting the First Family.
The signal role of the Lozada case is in bringing forth these pressures. In turn, the pressure on the president to resign will intensify. Ironically, the effective pressure may come from her own official family and camp rather than from the outside.
The Palace has also had to backtrack on its attempt to divert public attention by means of prematurely launching it’s amendments scheme. The Vice-President, for obvious reasons, has begun to grow a spine.
Yesterday, the Inquirer editorial pointed out that what is undeniable, is that the administration’s engaged in a Conspiracy. One that entailed a whole roster of officials collectively insulting the intelligence of the public, as Manuel Buencamino sardonically demonstrated in his column.
The group Action for Economic Reforms, in calling for the resignation of the President, puts it this way:
Criminal justice will come, but now is the time to take political action……
The first family is the capo di tutti capi, the boss of all bosses. The Macapagal-Arroyo family has turned the Philippine government into a mafia family, with Cabinet men, congressmen, and other functionaries as their mob lieutenants. We have state capture not by the elite but by a Filipino mafia headed by the first family.The Philippines is not lacking in laws and institutions against corruption and plunder…
Much effort has been undertaken to address chronic corruption…
Despite all this, what is missing is the simplest answer to the problem: Fighting corruption is a question of leadership.Since the leadership itself is brazenly engaged in plunder, corruption remains unabated. Under the leadership of a non-corrupt president, anti-corruption programs and institutions will be effective. Under a corrupt presidency, the same programs and institutions only become a protective veil for corruption itself…
With GMA’s repeated betrayal of the public trust, she has no right to sit as President a minute longer. All other officials involved in the ZTE-NBN deal, including Secretary Romy Neri, DOTC Secretary Leandro Mendoza, and members of the NEDA-ICC must step down from their government posts. The officials involved in the abduction of Jun Lozada and its cover-up in the media, such as PNP Chief Avelino Razon, Secretary Lito Atienza and DILG Secretary Ronaldo Puno, must likewise step down.
We must expunge the Philippine Mafia.
And yet even as more and more people add their voices, from Harvey Keh to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (perhaps, taking its cue from the national lawyer’s association, and perhaps statements such as Jovito Salonga’s, the law school governments of the Ateneo, UP and other law schools are reportedly meeting and are expected to call on the President to resign) to the Makati Business Club (and if there were any divisions in its ranks, they’ve closed ranks over Secretary Favila’s threat to unleash the BIR on businessmen; as Boy Blue replied, “bring it on!”) except for that old Palace reliable, Vivianne Yuchengco, the debate goes on and on about the President. The debate is distilled to its essence by this quote from the play, A Man for All Seasons:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
Yet we know that in real life as in the play and film, More ended up imprisoned and put on trial, charged with treason: bearing the full brunt of “Man’s laws,” because the King wanted him forced to publicly recant his private opposition to the King’s divorce and remarriage, which More found contrary to God’s laws. The world remembers him as a man who submitted to the law, to prove his fidelity to a higher one. Recognition the laws of man can be flawed, and man’s justice profoundly unjust.
There is another gripping scene where More is undergoing trial (“betoken,” as used in the dialogue, means “be a sign of; indicate”) and his refusal to publicly take an oath as demanded by the king is taken as proof positive of treason:
Cromwell: Now, Sir Thomas, you stand on your silence.
Sir Thomas More: I do.
Cromwell: But, gentlemen of the jury, there are many kinds of silence. Consider first the silence of a man who is dead. Let us suppose we go into the room where he is laid out, and we listen: what do we hear? Silence. What does it betoken, this silence? Nothing; this is silence pure and simple. But let us take another case. Suppose I were to take a dagger from my sleeve and make to kill the prisoner with it; and my lordships there, instead of crying out for me to stop, maintained their silence. That would betoken! It would betoken a willingness that I should do it, and under the law, they will be guilty with me. So silence can, according to the circumstances, speak! Let us consider now the circumstances of the prisoner’s silence. The oath was put to loyal subjects up and down the country, and they all declared His Grace’s title to be just and good. But when it came to the prisoner, he refused! He calls this silence. Yet is there a man in this court – is there a man in this country! – who does not know Sir Thomas More’s opinion of this title?
Crowd in court gallery: No!
Cromwell: Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!
Sir Thomas More: Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is “Qui tacet consentiret”: the maxim of the law is “Silence gives consent”. If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.
Cromwell: Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it?
Sir Thomas More: The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.
In More’s case he submitted, as a believing Christian, to the secular power precisely because he was obedient to a higher authority: one that compelled him to bow down before the laws of man because they are as nothing compared to the laws of God, which required fidelity to the death.
The law, he recognized, could serve as defense for certain things but there come points when the law compels obedience even when the law itself is unjust; yet compels that submission because the law’s limitations are clear, it cannot intrude into the distinctions a person’s conscience creates between what is legal and what is just.
A similar question was tackled by the scientist Stephen Jay Gould, when he discussed how the debate between those who believe in science and those who look to a supernatural authority are engaged in a futile debate. See his essay Nonoverlapping Magisteria:
I believe, with all my heart, in a respectful, even loving concordat between our magisteria — the NOMA solution. NOMA represents a principled position on moral and intellectua] grounds, not a mere diplomatic stance. NOMA also cuts both ways. If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions properly under the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world’s empirical constitution. This mutual humility has important practical consequences in a world of such diverse passions.
By all means the law is often our shield against injustice, but there are certain forms of injustice our laws are impotent to address.
What is at stake is the position held by the President of the Philippines. A position not hers by right, but by grace; a position only temporarily hers and not her inalienable possession like her life, for example. What she can claim a right to is a fixed term; but the term is hers by virtue of certain assumptions, among them her receiving a popular mandate that is genuine and not so marred by controversy as to make it suspect; or that she continues to enjoy the confidence of the people who consider her fit to continue in office.
The supreme law, the Constitution, gives her the opportunity to declare herself unfit to hold office at any time (resignation); it grants the power to declare her unfit for office not only to Congress, by means of a prosecution begun by the House and a political, not judicial, trial in the Senate; and even to her subordinates, the Cabinet, who can declare her unfit for office and who can even force a vote in Congress; and it grants the public at the very least the right to petition government for the redress of grievances and enshrines the citizenry as the ultimate arbiter of what is legal: for, if need be, the public can overturn the fundamental law of the land by means of revolution (if it succeeds).
Her critics do not call for the murder or assassination of the President, or that she should be denied the chance to adequately defend herself in court; but what they assert is that the President may continue to enjoy the presumption of innocence as far as the courts are concerned but no longer enjoys that assumption as far as the public is concerned; that in a sense, in the face of the President’s acts of commission and omission as well as those of her henchmen, a significant portion of the population has what lawyers call a moral certainty of her guilt; this moral certainty does not meet, as of yet, the requirements of the courts when it comes to depriving her of life, liberty, or property; but it is more than enough in the political sphere, to justify citizens calling her to relinquish her office.
Because, as Joker Arroyo in a previous incarnation declared, we cannot afford to have a country run by a thief. Whether it was run by thieves in the past or will be run by thieves in the future is absolutely irrelevant and immaterial, if your honors please. We are talking about the incumbent President and no one else. We can deprive only the incumbent President of office and no one else; the punishment is specific because it can only apply to one person at a time.
What is the law’s is the law’s; what is the people’s as a political entity is entirely something else.
The question is how the people, as a political entity, should dispense with political questions, such as the fitness of their head of state and government for office. Public opinion and the threat of impeachment drove Nixon from office; de Gaulle, facing student protests and a lost referendum vote, resigned. Politics recognizes force majeure when it comes to the terms of its highest officials: when a party loses the US House of Representatives, traditionally the Speaker from the party that lost Congress resigns his seat; it is not just in parliamentary systems that there can be votes of confidence -whether in elections or in mobilized public opinion.
Oliver Cromwell embarked on his dictatorship by dismissing the Long Parliament with these famous words on April 20, 1653:
It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, andenemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye haveno more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter’d your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil’d this sacred place, and turn’d the Lord’s temple into a denof thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d, are yourselves gone!So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!
And this is the warning that echoes down in history: in face of wrongdoing or plain incompetence, the longer people confuse procedures for actual government, the greater the temptation to banish those fussing over procedures to restore what’s right. But one needn’t embark on the path of dictatorship to realize that an essential attribute of the democratic system, is the opportunity it affords to discard a discredited leader, rather have the whole system go down in flames to preserve one person’s political life.
As the British parliament agonized over the question of whether to continue its fight against Hitler or surrender, one MP, Leo Amery, quoted Cromwell in urging Neville Chamberlain to resign:
Some 300 years ago, when this House found that its troops were being beaten again and again by the dash and daring of the Cavaliers, by Prince Rupert’s Cavalry, Oliver Cromwell spoke to John Hampden. In one of his speeches he recounted what he said. It was this:
‘I said to him, “Your troops are most of them old, decayed serving men and tapsters and such kind of fellows.” You must get men of a spirit that are likely to go as far as they will go, or you will be beaten still.’
It may not be easy to find these men. They can be found only by trial and by ruthlessly discarding all who fail and have their failings discovered. We are fighting today for our life, for our liberty, for our all; we cannot go on being led as we are.
I have quoted certain words of Oliver Cromwell. I will quote certain other words. I do it with great reluctance, because I am speaking of those who are old friends and associates of mine, but they are words which, I think, are applicable to the present situation. This is what Cromwell said to the Long Parliament when he thought it was no longer fit to conduct the affairs of the nation:
“You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go”
Chamberlain resigned; Churchill became Prime Minister, despite the great misgivings, even obvious mistrust, of his peers. When Chamberlain died, Churchill, in turn, paid tribute to his predecessor:
It is not given to human beings, happily for them, for otherwise life would be intolerable, to foresee or to predict to any large extent the unfolding course of events. In one phase men seem to have been right, in another they seem to have been wrong. Then again, a few years later, when the perspective of time has lengthened, all stands in a different setting. There is a new proportion. There is another scale of values. History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days. What is the worth of all this? The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, because we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations; but with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honour.
At stake, let me repeat, is the President’s political life; as to the sum total of her life we can’t pass judgment, yet, though it is, of course, possible that in retrospect, when that time comes, she may come off better than she seems, today; or worse. But it is not too soon, to pass judgment on her fitness for office. This is a judgment call in which the law is only relevant in terms of our layman’s appreciation of what it’s spirit ought to be, and whether under her leadership, the government has proven itself faithless to that spirit.
The question however, settled in many minds, remains unsettled in the minds of others; it hinges, in those minds, on whether the dangers of an aroused public are so grave, as to justify denying the public their sovereignty; it is a question involving fears as old as Edmund Burke’s condemnation of the French Revolution:
Were all those dreadful things necessary? Were they the inevitable results of the desperate struggle of determined patriots, compelled to wade through blood and tumult, to the quiet shore of a tranquil and prosperous liberty? No! nothing like it. The fresh ruins of France, which shock our feelings wherever we can turn our eyes, are not the devastation of civil war; they are the sad but instructive monuments of rash and ignorant counsel in time of profound peace. They are the display of inconsiderate and presumptuous, because unresisted and irresistible, authority. The persons who have thus squandered away the precious treasure of their crimes, the persons who have made this prodigal and wild waste of public evils, (the last stage reserved for the ultimate ransom of the state), have met in their progress with little, or rather with no opposition at all. Their whole march was more like a triumphal procession, than the progress of a war. Their pioneers have gone before them, and demolished and laid everything level at their feet. Not one drop of their blood have they shed in the cause of the country they have ruined. They have made no sacrifices to their projects of greater consequence than their shoe buckles, whilst they were imprisoning their king, murdering their fellow citizens, and bathing in tears, and plunging in poverty and distress, thousands of worthy men and worthy families. Their cruelty has not even been the base result of fear. It has been the effect of their sense of perfect safety, in authorizing treasons, robberies, rapes, assassinations, slaughters, and burnings, throughout their harassed land. But the cause of all was plain from the beginning.
But we are heirs, not to Burke, but to the Frenchmen he condemned; even Rizal was convinced, if not of the desirability, then at least of the inevitability, of revolution; else our national narrative would still be that of a province of Spain or State of the Union. We can detect at least a familiarity with his arguments, by way of Rizal: who ultimate advice was, you cannot force events, they will unfold in their own good time (see my disquisition on Rizal’s Pilosopiya ng Pagtitiis).
Well, things are unfolding, but it would be wrong to assert they will unfold in a precise, pre-determined manner. But they are unfolding in a manner that is demolishing the arguments used, so far, by those who wanted to keep rationalizing their implied or overt support for the administration.
This is just political noise? The increasing decibels of public protest are preferable to the silence of the tomb or the cold vaults where even colder cash is piling up for the President’s favored few.
They are all the same? Perhaps when they could moderate their greed; but the greed is unmoderated, it is accelerating, and along with the avarice is an out-of-control contempt for every Filipino, rich or poor, educated or not, urbanite or rural dweller, who dares defy the administration.
What will it achieve? An end to the insanity, closing a chapter to the hubris, restoring the enfeebled democratic muscles of the electorate, reviving the dulled sense of right and wrong of a public.
What about the economy? For those who believe in trickle-down, removing the dam that has held captive the people’s money; for those who wanted prudence and professionalism in the management of our natural and financial resources, the chance this will finally happen and not be feigned.
It boils down to the administration’s scale of greed at the very least matching, if not exceeding, that of the government that preceded it. And a public realizing that it must stand up to it, end it, punish it, for now it sees its your style, or lack of it, but your performance while in office, that must be the sole, standard, measure of a leader’s fitness for office. The mafiosi in slippers and the mafiosi in an expensive suit are both plain thugs.
The President overturned her policy of preferring BOT deals, to add to the debts of the country, to obtain foreign funding for a project whose cost was bloated by the demands of her family and allies. To consummate this deal, she left the bedside of her potentially dying husband to please her allies. She would have pursued it, if the public hadn’t opposed it. Yet she has kept trying to find more and similar deals. This is just part of the pattern, one that consists of her recklessly spending government finances, then figuring out a way to blunt the effects of her spending, only to find new ways to spend that involve accumulating unnecessary and indefensible obligations.
Minguita Padilla asserts that the inflated commission demanded by Abalos equals the annual budget of the Philippine General Hospital: multiplied five times. I’ve heard another assertion that the amount equals the annual budget of the Department of Agriculture.
A few weeks back, a dispirited critic of the President asked another critic (an agnostic if not an atheist), “Do you think God put her here to teach us something?” And the agnostic/atheist critic instantly replied, “Yes, to teach us freedom isn’t gained so easily.”
The long road began, for some, in 2001, for others, in 2004, for others, in 2006 and so on. They have come together, taken time to understand each other, hammered out consensus, taken stock of past mistakes and appropriate things to do; all the while hounded by those united in support for the President because she dressed better, spoke better, was better-educated and showed better executive control, than her predecessor.
But when, as now, she’s revealed as nothing better than him, and in many ways worse because if he was slothful, she has been industrious in undermining institutions, intimidating any organization critical of her, and corrupting the various petty crooks and mulcting officials who have always been there, but who have grown fat, proud, and left stupefied by her drowning them in money and in stripping them of whatever self-control and professional values they had left.
The result is that the enemies of the people should really be named Legion -for they are many; the ones in the cabinet who serve her with enthusiasm and no scruples; the soldiers she has infiltrated into sensitive civilian posts; the business communities she has turned into her propaganda organs; the rank-and-file who have lost even the nominal prestige their positions should accord them.
The line of men and women who have abandoned all pretenses to serving the public, who are reduced to serving the President and her family, according to their humiliating whims, has grown so long that the President’s leaving office will only be the first step in a process that will many of the formerly well-connected turned potential social and political pariahs.
But it’s that first step that can and should unite us. It unites those who wanted it years ago, with those who have come to see as a necessary thing, only now. We are together now, having seen not only the best, but the worst, in each of ourselves; but collectively, better for coming together now.
What to do? Make a list. Those who can no longer deserve a position paid for from the public coffers, and who must resign immediately. Those who supported the government to the extent they advocated means no genuinely democratic government would have conceived of adopting in the past. Those whose perks and power are made possible by their closeness to the President, who cast aside their own reputations in her service.
And make a list of the things that failed to work: impeachment, presidential commissions, appointments to departments and the judiciary, the military, only to cause those institutions grave scandal and the gutting of professional pride and esprit de corps.
And make a list of the things you want, and not the things you hate; for it is easy to hate but difficult to be for certain things. Clean elections? Greater or less party discipline? Efficient and honest tax collection, social services as a right of the people and not personally-bestowed patronage? The list is yours, but armed with similar lists, there we will have the chance to come together with a truly meaningful reform agenda.
But until then: march.
Until then: make noise.
Until then: write, call, text, to share what you feel.
From now on, forget your past mistakes, or disappointments, and focus on the task at hand.
They say: they represent public opinion.
We must say: we do!
You must say, I have had enough with feeling helpless, or fearful, or embarrassed over past loyalties; instead, I will stand, not someone, but for me; and if there are many like me, I will link arms with them; and whatever happens, let it not be said that at the country’s present opportunity for redemption, you were will trying to find excuses to postpone the inevitable.
The Black and White Movement gives you three opportunities to register your protest:
1. Log on to our website — www.blacknwhite-movement.com and register your name to declare your support for Jun Lozada.
2. Send text “Sa Totoo Tayo” to 0915-3296830 to be counted. Also, text this message to all of your friends and relatives: “Kung naniniwala kayo sa sinasabi ni Jun Lozada, text “Sa Totoo Tayo” to 0915-3296830. Visit www.blacknwhite-movement.com for latest count and activities.”
3. And if you’re in Metro Manila, join us on Sunday, February 17, 2008, 10 AM at La Salle Greenhills for a Mass organized by President Cory Aquino and the La Salle brothers in support of Jun Lozada and his family.
The time to act is now. Sa Totoo Tayo. Now na!
Supremo: “At least France did not go back to absolute monarchy after the French Revolution of 1789. The subsequent monarchs and leaders even ‘moderated their greed’. They are aware that if the French people could overthrow one leader, they could overthrow another. That’s what we need in the Philippines. An event so traumatic for the national leadership that no future leader will even attempt to go against the people.”
Are you suggesting that we send to the gallows a “despot” like Gloria? (We can’t do that to Erap, as he is now a free man.)
Isn’t it that the right to protest is in our constitution? It is legal, isn’t it? So where is the contradiction there?
Why naman so harsh Manolo… I thought we were friends?
“benign0, the paradox only exists if you cannot distinguish between the letter and the spirit of the law.” — cvj
Precisely my point!
Benign0, before you agree wholeheartedly let me be more explicit. The paradox or contradiction between rule of law and street protests exists in your mind because you fail to distinguish between the letter and the spirit of the law.
O ayan patas na, meron din palang meeting ang mga pro-GMA. Si Ray Roquero raw ang nag-convene. Kung hindi bawal magprotesta laban kay GMA, hindi rin bawal mag suporta sa kanya, di ba?
I really love today’s editorial. It calls the Bishops reaction to the Lozada confession “lame.”
Who’s going? I’m definitely dropping by. I’m going to have dinner anyway later on in the Ayala area. Who’s going?
“Maybe the demonstrators should bring press cards?–UPns
Wa epek! Their hands will be tied with wires, will be herded into iron-grilled buses, and brought to HQ.
I’ll be in Makati and join the Pro-government Rally! anyone joining? ^_^
I’m going to be there definitely… But think about this if she resigns and VP Noli De Castro became the next president will we accept it? what are our demands precisely? what will happen to those congressmen who are the avid supporters of the government? As I see it we will just cut off one head but we’ll leave the others just like in the time of Cory and Erap… Ideas anyone?
My idea is for the investigations to continue while the Arroyos cannot use government resources to stifle the truth. If in the end it is proven that they Arroyos are clean, then their name will be vindicated. Otherwise, all those proven to have stolen from the people shall be punished.
pumta kayo sa rally at ng madukutan kayo! parang maraming salisi dyan….hehehehe
alam naman ninyo na panahon na ito ng mga maga-galing sa snatching at pickpocketing nakikihalo.
It is hypocritical for us Filipinos to be such a stickler for the law at this point in time. Kung takot kayong makita ang totoong kulay no Gloria sabihin nyo dahil ako ay natatakot din. This is one president who doesn’t just hate dissidents, she despises us. She has contempt for people who want her to resign. She knows what is at stake. It isn’t just her family but her family name. Remember she is the daughter of a president. Her pride is not ordinary. Even compared to a super star like Erap.
mang_isko. Remember that rally in Ayala where nobody showed up. Cory was there. I was passing by and someone threw buko juice at the crowd. I got wet. Yeah, I know the risk.
Sa mga pupunta sa rally, please note the reminders posted by bloggers here. Be safe.
how could some people here hurl insult on street protest without condemning the condemnable acts of government which are the reason why people are on the streets. kung hindi talaga kayo bayaran ng gobyerno maging patas naman kayo.
I am not anti-Gloria. I wasn’t even anti-Marcos or anybody in governemnt. I am anti corruption and the callousness by which the affairs of the nation is being handled by government
oiii, si ate dora affected….
“Jon Mariano :My idea is for the investigations to continue while the Arroyos cannot use government resources to stifle the truth. If in the end it is proven that they Arroyos are clean, then their name will be vindicated. Otherwise, all those proven to have stolen from the people shall be punished.”
I don’t think thats feasible provided the kind of influence the first family has over the cabinet and people in power…
….simple lang ang argumento dito sa ginagawang rally.
una paano magkakaayon ang ideolohiya ng mga religious kuno at ng sa mga hindi naniniwala ng diyos. pangalawa yong magsasalita sa rally sila ba’y walang nagawang kasalanan sa bayan? nakakasuka nga eh, pag-inisip mo si binay magsasalita na sa rally laban sa corruption.
….hayyyy naku.
well, this rally is good. so long as it stays an outlet for public catharsis and not simply an excuse for demagogues to promote their brand of dogmatic violence.
i’m going to sit this one out though. because i think the timing stinks.
the only way that any of this is ever going to be resolved is if we rely on the institutions (however flawed everyone sees them to be) of the state to fulfil their responsibilities to the people.
….aprub ako dyan tonio!
For my part, in these times I often reread the words of the American poet Archibald Macleish: “How shall freedom be defended? By arms when it is attacked by arms; by truth when it is attacked by lies; by democratic faith when it is attacked by authoritarian dogma. Always, and in the final act, by determination and faith.”
This rally is not about being pro or anti government. This is about accountability and the truth. Lozada came out not because he is against the government or he is pro-opposition — he came out because he could not lie and he had no other choice but to tell the truth.
So, people we must voice out our indignation because we are being deprived of the truth. We must voice out our indignation and anger because we are not getting the good governance that we deserve. We must voice out our sentiments because we deserve honest, competent leaders. As citizens, we have no other choice except to voice out our sentiments in the face of damning indications that we are not getting what we deserve.
And if GMA resigns (I firmly doubt that she ever will kahit magkapatayan pa), it is only right that Noli de Castro succeeds her as per Constitutional provision. But the thing, let us not be paralyzed with grim future scenarios. Let us do the right thing, one step at a time.
“We must voice out our sentiments because we deserve honest, competent leaders.” – Madonna
Ha ha!!!!
Tell THAT to the people who voted for Trillianes. 😀
If we want “competent” leaders, then we should vote competently.
If we want honesty in our leaders, then we should be honest about OURSELVES.
Truth be said: We deserve our leaders. They merely reflect the society they rule.
I am amazed by the reception of the makati rally from employees working there. Some actually participated in the rally but have to be back in the office to log out hahahaha.
Talked to the HR directors of my clients and they were like it’s ok if they went out to join the rally but they have to be back to finish the reports! Hope this is a start of the much needed actions to awake more people and say enough is enough.
as general lim said before “Dissent without action is consent”
“Hope this is a start of the much needed actions to awake more people and say enough is enough.”
Enough is enough nga ba?
Ang tagal nang binibigkas ang mga salitang yan.
What’s being done DIFFERENT today? How’s this street circus different from past street circuses?
If nothing is being done DIFFERENTLY, how in the world can we expect DIFFERENT results this time?
seen at the rally–
manuel quezon III, some retired generals including Police General Franco ( SAF ),
Bencard is not a paid agent of Arroyo even if he’s stubborn insistence on the rule of law makes him appear so.
Similarly, Benigno is not a agent of Arroyo. He is just a Filipino in search of a skin whitener.
“If we want “competent†leaders, then we should vote competently.
If we want honesty in our leaders, then we should be honest about OURSELVES.
Truth be said: We deserve our leaders. They merely reflect the society they rule.–benigNo
Jezzh, what crap! The people voted competently and was cheated.
Dishonest leaders attract dishonest admirers and symphathizers.
Truth is, you deserves your leader, their rule reflects your views, hehehe.
What a mess we’re in.
Sometimes I envy people who can be so moved by their conviction as to the supremacy of their perception. These are the people who will go to the rallies in the coming days.
Try as I might to form an honest conviction to support calling for changing this government, I just don’t find it in me. I am simply filled with doubt.
Because all these people who were calling Erap’s head to roll during Edsa 2 are the same people who are saying that we’ve actually gone worse with Gloria.
How do you trust a person peddling for change when after you buy their idea, they come back and say that what you bought was rotten?
Supremo says:
Unwillingness to accept government corruption is the proper position to take. Speaking out against government corruption makes perfect sense. Holding a demonstration against government corruption makes sense.
hehehe
Admin is boasting…
February 15, 2008 – Makati Business District
A first step on the road to remove corruption and abuses in governance; got a bit tired in the protest but truly fulfilling. Let us not fall back into the illusion that because we were there that we can now forget the coming responsibilities and further steps to take. Darkness may withdraw for a moment but when they think it is “all clear” they go back to their old foul habits.
On another note, a decision was late in the coming but at least it came nonetheless, from the Inquirer.net dated today Feb. 15, 2007;
=================
Excerpt:
SC allows airing of ‘Garci’ tapes
High court votes 10-5
By Tetch Torres
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has voided an order by the National Telecommunications Commission prohibiting the airing of a wiretapped conversation between President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and a former elections commissioner over alleged plans to rig the elections in 2004.
Voting 10-5, the high court favored the playing of the “Hello Garci†tapes that recorded Arroyo talking to a male voice, who reports had identified as former Commission on Elections chairman Virgilio Garcillano, but which the poll official had denied.
“The writs of certiorari and prohibition are hereby issued, nullifying the official statements made by respondents [Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez and National Telecommunications Commission] on June 8 and 11, 2006 warning the media on airing the alleged wiretapped conversation between the President and other personalities, for constituting unconstitutional prior restraint on the exercise of freedom of speech and of the press,” the high court said.
“Any act done, such as a speech uttered, for and on behalf of the government in an official capacity is covered by the rule on prior restraint,” the high court said.
After the “Hello Garci†tapes were made public in 2005, Gonzalez warned reporters against the airing of these tapes. The NTC issued a similar warning and reminded broadcast media to observe the anti-wiretapping law.
“We rule that not every violation of a law will justify straitjacketing the exercise of freedom of speech and of the press…The totality of the injurious effects of the violation to private and public interest must be calibrated in light of the preferred status accorded by the Constitution and by related international covenants protecting freedom of speech and of the press…There is no showing that the feared violation of the anti-wiretapping law clearly endangers the national security of the State,” the high court said…
… Concurring with Chief Justice Reynato Puno in granting the petition were Senior Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Antonio T. Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Conchita Carpio Morales, Adolfo S. Azcuna, and Ruben T. Reyes.
Those who dissented were Justices Renato C. Corona, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, and Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro.
Justices Gutierrez, Carpio, Azcuna, Nazario, and Nachura wrote separate opinions.
Justice Dante O. Tinga voted to grant Chavez’s petition insofar as Gonzalez’s warning was concerned, saying it constitutes “prior restraint. 
==========
Let us list down, put in file, study and remember the Justices who voted for or against this decision and see what their reasons are.
Civil society should be more pro-active nowadays and monitor the Justices themselves whether they are properly doing their job or not; or if they have become biased like the DOI. Are there villains or are there heroes, or are there shades of gray?
Many Filipinos have become lazy, taking things as they come, wanting things to fall in their lap in this age of instant gratification. It is time to critically analyze the events and the people involved.
This is our nation, we live in it; we as a people are responsible for what it is now and what it will become in the future. Be pro-active, be vigilant, support and spread the light and rail against the coming of the night. Your future, your children’s and grandchildren’s, is in your hands.
^^^^^^^^^^
“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”
“How do you trust a person peddling for change when after you buy their idea, they come back and say that what you bought was rotten?–Carl
Carl, you have to admire a peddler’s honesty. They come back to replace the rotten product, could be a good one this time, who knows. Better than ‘NO RETURN, NO EXCHANGE’.
..you have to admire a peddler’s honesty. They come back with :
– money back guarantee;
– trust me, I know what I am doing!!
or is it
– fool you once, shame on me; fool you twice… shame on you…
GMA’s non-attendance to the PMA homecoming in Baguio this weekend clearly shows that nobody is secured around military & police personnel anymore.
What will you tell to your elementary school child if she/he asks you why the Commander-in-Chief is not secured around her soldiers (Most of them are Officers of the AFP & PNP)?
freedom, liberty, license – the power or condition of acting without compulsion.
FREEDOM has a broad range of application from total absence of restraint to merely a sense of not being unduly hampered or frustrated {freedom of the press}. LIBERTY suggests release from former restraint or compulsion {the released prisoner had difficulty adjusting to his new liberty}.
LICENSE implies freedom specially granted or conceded and may connote an abuse of freedom {freedom without responsibility may degenerate into license}. {Why do some people equate being elected as a license to plunder? Your freedom to demonstrate does not give you license to trespass onto private property.}
———
Every so often, think about What are my responsibilities? when thinking about freedom.
Then after Freedoms and Rights also comes Privileges that have to be earned..like driving, permit to carry weapons, though it is never granted in our case, but in some instances, except as stated, all Freedoms and Rights are subject to limitations, limits that can be reasonably justified in a Free and Democratic Society..
And here’s another good examples, two recent rulings of the Court of Appeal: as law is law and mostly common sense and applicable in most Democratic Society, these may have some relevance Anywhere:
Allow the admission into evidence 35 kilos of cocaine found in an accused SUV as a result of unreasonable search, which the court (2-1 ruling) admitted violated the accused Charter Rights, but fall within Reasonable limits as to justify the action of the Police Officers for Public Safety..the same as allowing into evidence the discovery of a firearm in a schoolboy’s backpack as a result of the search in a vicinity where a suspect (not the accused) was reported to be nearby, which was a School…
Pingkian,
You don’t know what you are talking about. I don’t know what you are talking about. Read MLQ3’s blog from the beginning before you agree with bencard and make a fool of yourself.
hawaiianguy,
Marcos was lucky because he fled the country and died in exile. Erap was lucky because GMA pardoned him. Their luck empowered GMA to do what she is doing now. Sending GMA to the gallows might ‘moderate the greed’ of future leaders.
One thing that struck me about the rally (I was there till almost 8 p.m.) was how widespread the anti-GMA sentiment is. The left, the youth, the Church, the workers, businessmen, farmers, urban poor, etc., were all represented–and some of these sectors are even allergic to each other. And to give the lie to the Palace line that attendance at these protests is waning, this has to be one of the best attended protests since (and possibly even including) those right after Hello, Garci broke in ’05.
Now, it’s hard to extrapolate, but if the administration continues to practice its brand of governance, I think the odds are increasing that some new scandal (if not the current one) is going to exhaust the people’s patience. When all those sectors start to agree that something needs to be done, it is an indication that we are approaching a turning point. There is a limit to what the people will accept and if the government doesn’t make some drastic changes, that line will be crossed at some point.
UP n student,
It is the responsibility of every Filipino to guard their freedom.
supremo, you may have freedom to live wherever you want but you need a permit (visa) to stay in another country. you may have freedom to pursue a career but you need a license to practice a profession. you may have freedom to own a car but you need a license to drive it. you may have freedom to own a gun but you need a permit to possess and carry it. got the drift?
Ibahin naman natin yon rights and privilege dito..ang manga Americano mayroon rights to bear arms at sabi daw no law shall be passed to violate that rights, pero kailangan kikitain nila ang privileheyo para maka dala nang baril para personal proteksyon, iba na man yon.. at iba naman yon bawat isa may roon freedom bumili nang kotse, pero ang pagmaniho privileheyo rin yon iho, kaya paghirapan mo rin yon, kaya intindihin and kaibahan nang Rights at Privileges…payo ni mang_kiko
Where is the outraged??? Judging from the pathetic turnout at the Makati rally, it seems like people dont buy everything what is being hurled at the senate. I think the opposition set themseves up again for failure. Too much fanfare with nothing to show for.
mang_kiko,
Just for the record bencard said that not me.
@supremo : While one may have to risk getting arrested for acts of civil disobedience or similar,
Yes… It is the responsibility of every Filipino to guard their freedom.
[quote]
supremo :
hawaiianguy,
Marcos was lucky because he fled the country and died in exile. Erap was lucky because GMA pardoned him. Their luck empowered GMA to do what she is doing now. Sending GMA to the gallows might ‘moderate the greed’ of future leaders.
[/unquote]
No the people who are in EDSA were lucky. Marcos and Erap had balls to not to succumb from their General’s wishes to just kill everybody in that place. You can actually praise what they did. You can actually applaud them for not being bloodthirsty.
That’s a very big difference on what we have now.