I didn’t know common-sense remarks could be characterized as words that “bordered on seditious utterances.” But that’s exactly how the justice secretary described a statement from Jaro Archbishop Angel Lagdameo and four other prelates.
The statement—“The time to prepare a new government is now. The time to start radical reforms is now. The time for moral regeneration is now. The time to conquer complacency, cynicism and apathy and to prove that we matured from our political disappointments is now. Not in 2010 but now.”—is a reasonable response to the question, “What have eight years of Gloria Arroyo’s economic management and commitment to stamp out corruption accomplished?”
The country is fifth in the global survey on hunger and 11th in the world’s honor roll of corruption. Medical care is beyond the reach of ordinary folk. Education is only for those who can afford it. Millions have to go abroad to find a job or a decent wage. And those who complain are abducted, tortured or killed.
Is it unreasonable then of Bishop Lagdameo to ask, “If we are not horrified, disgusted, exasperated and enraged by these realities, can we still say we love our country?”
A month ago the Supreme Court affirmed the finding of an appellate court that Gen. Jovito Palparan (ret.) was involved in the abduction, detention and torture of two brothers thought to be members or sympathizers of the New People’s Army. What has the Department of Justice done about Palparan?
In September the executive secretary said he saw the wisdom behind the government’s proposal to “move for a deferment for about three to five more years from the date of ratification, our country’s implementation of its obligations as a state party to the OPCAT [Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture].” Is torture so widespread in this government that it needs at least three to five years to stop it? So what do we do in the meantime, lie back and enjoy it, applaud the glorification of the likes of General Palparan?
In February the Philippine Information Agency issued a press release saying, “President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo directed Thursday the Department of Justice [DOJ] to conduct an investigation to pinpoint those who may be held liable for violation of the procurement and antigraft laws in connection with the canceled national broadband network [NBN]-ZTE project.” Other than recommending charges against the whistle blower and his father, has the DOJ found anyone else to charge?
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has avoided, evaded and obstructed the threshing out of allegations of cheating, plunder, money laundering and human-rights violations by hiding and intimidating witnesses, making baseless claims of executive privilege, filing sham impeachment complaints and doling out bribes. How much intelligence does it take to figure out something is wrong and something needs to be done about it right now?
The law should be applied to those who have made a mockery of our legal system and our Constitution. It shouldn’t be used to terrorize a bishop who railed against “overprized projects, multibillion-peso scams of various kinds, election manipulations, anomalous transactions, bribery of both high and low and unsolved murders of media practitioners.”
Has this country become so twisted it’s now criminal to speak out against wanton corruption and human-rights violations, and to call for an immediate change of leaders? Has 6 turned out to be 9?
There is an impeachment complaint pending before the Batasan. It contains a laundry list of allegations against Gloria Arroyo. Let’s give the complaint a fair and thorough hearing so we can find out, once and for all, who is the real criminal.
Popularity: 1% [?]
mb,
I’ve always maintained that Philippine anti-sedition and similar laws have been impliedly repealed by the Bill of Rights of the 1935 Constitution, the Marcos Constitution and present Constitution.
Freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances are too basic, too vital in our constitutional system that to describe the remarks of the Justice Secretary as Marcosian is generous.
Rebellion, sedition and treason are defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code. They have not been impliedly repealed by the Bill of Rights in the 1935 Constitution, neither in the Bill of Rights of the 1972 Marcos Constitution nor the 1987 Cory Aquino Constitution.
The State’s argument for the legality of rebellion, sedition and treason is that the government has the right to protect itself from transient political tempest. To contain the people’s anger against a very oppressive government, the State with the aid of a corrupt Court has come to develop in the course of time that free speech can be curtailed if it has the tendency to inflame or likely to inflame the populace. Out of this fear from the populace, the Court has developed the doctrine of “clear and present danger” to muzzle the right of the people to speak their dissatisfaction against a corrupt and oppressive government.
But the right of the people to rebel and overthrow an oppressive government is recognized in the writings of our political giants foremost of whom is Thomas Jefferson, the author of the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
He declared:
“ x x that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”.
Jefferson’s belief in the social contract came from British political philosopher John Locke, who argued that government existed by consent of the governed and that people should rebel if their natural rights were violated.
Jefferson’s political thought was made in the context of the right of the people to severe the yoke of bondage from foreign oppressor. But the underlying principle can be applied with the same force if the leaders elected by the people become oppressive and become destructive of the ends for which the people have elected them to office.
In our present context, there are built in mechanisms to address abuse of authority, oppression and government tyranny: regular elections and impeachment. But we have not made use of these safety valves prudently in order to contain the displeasure our citizenry , instead we further inflame them by rigging the regular elections and the impeachment chamber is composed of the very people or the party that oppress and abuse our citizenry and therefore the chamber cannot perform the constitutional task it has been mandated to perform.
The country is a veritable tinderbox that may inflame one day. I shudder at the idea of bloodletting that will only further enslave our people if we cannot find a strong and moral leader who will inspire the people that the transformation is for our redemption and not for our doom.