I’d say it was a pretty masterful job all round, wouldn’t you? I mean, it’s positively breathtaking: the Supreme Court, COMELEC, Congress, the party-lists and computerized balloting, not to mention the warlords, the military and the police? Erap no longer the lone administration spoiler with Manny Villar (among others) now apparently in tow as well? Yes, indeed — I’d have to say the Palace had all its bases covered. No doubt about it: a pretty thorough rigging all round.
I know I’ve been somewhat scarce of late. It started out with a laborious (if ultimately ineffectual) attempt to make sense of COMELEC’s party-list inclusions and exclusions, as well as the Supreme Court’s decision not to require public officials to relinquish their current positions if they hoped to run for elective posts in 2010. By the time the Ampatuan massacre had taken place, I was in a quiet state of rage. The overweening arrogance and sense of impunity with which Andal Ampatuan, Jr and his people comported themselves, COMELEC’s cavalier decision to make Shariff Aguak the site of the provincial capitol (where Toto Mangudadatu would have had to file his candidacy but which happened to be in Ampatuan territory, despite the well-publicized rift between the two clans), and the AFP’s decision not to escort the Mangudadatu convoy deeply troubled me, particularly in view of what it all implied about the central government’s role in the entire massacre. And what of those arms caches found in the properties of the Ampatuans, clearly bearing DND markings?
In the aftermath, as lurid and gory details began to emerge in swift and unabashed succession, a forensic anthropologist’s nightmare would ensue, in large part due to the poor handling and contamination of the victims’ remains and the massacre site itself: http://pcij.org/stories/report-of-the-humanitarian-and-fact-finding-mission-to-maguindanao/
Worse, the charge of rebellion in the context of martial law suggested that the offences were bailable and the perpetrators could still be granted amnesty. It was no wonder, then, that as of March of this year, the Philippines had already ranked sixth in the Global Impunity Index (http://cpj.org/reports/2009/03/getting-away-with-murder-2009.php); immediately after the massacre, of course, the country quickly became the “worst on record” for journalists worldwide: http://cpj.org/2009/11/maguindanao-death-toll-worst-for-press-in-recent-h.php. So, apart from Senators Biazon and Gordon, why were not more Senators and Congressmen calling for an investigation into the source/s of the arms caches that had suddenly been “discovered” in Maguindanao?
By the time COMELEC had announced that Grace Padaca, Ed Panlilio, Brig Gen Danny Lim and Danton Remoto had been disqualified, the burning question needed to be asked: could it be that all these institutions were in GMA’s pocket? Where does a nation turn to when its leaders, lawmakers, judiciary and law enforcement personnel routinely flout — rather than uphold — the rule of law? Were there anthropological underpinnings to this culture of impunity or was it purely a function of economic scarcity?
You can well understand why the sheer scale of this Lernaean Hydra (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Mythology/LernaeanHydra.html) had left me at an utter loss. To many, of course, much of this was nothing new: indeed, a cursory sweep of recent history indicated that the most egregious offenses have tended to be swept under the rug altogether: US abandonment of the Philippines during the Japanese occupation; MacArthur and the “collaborators” hailed as heroes (indeed, with Manuel Roxas eventually becoming President); Cory not pursuing Marcos and his henchmen for the ill-gotten wealth and human rights violations; FVR remaining remarkably quiet about Danding; and GMA pardoning Erap despite his precedent-setting conviction. As my buddy Mac mournfully observed one evening: “These are the big-time cases, Lil — no wonder the little guys are so sure they can get away with murder: they can. The precedents are set.”
Surreal in the extreme, you will agree, to be listening to a congressional debate about martial law led by Enrile, of all people, the guy whose fake ambush had been the initial excuse for Marcos’ declaration. Not to mention all the coup attempts he backed against Cory, indirectly stunting the country’s economic recovery. Hadn’t he even been charged with rebellion at one point? I suppose one could argue that this qualified him as an expert of sorts…
But what exactly was going on here, I had to wonder? Could the Constitution be part of the problem? Should more of these crimes be considered statutory? From where I sit, it would appear that the higher courts tend to be constantly clogged with cases that could effectively be addressed in the lower courts. USAID goes on to suggest that it is not only the backlog of cases in the courts but the fact that legal personnel are grossly underpaid that explains the nature of this corruption trap:
http://philippines.usaid.gov/dg_programs_judicial_reform.html
It would also seem to be the case that there is a shortage of lawyers, at least those who are willing to practice in trial courts.
Philippine law
Now I am certainly no lawyer but I have spent some time struggling with various bills and legal systems in an attempt to understand our various options in the Ampatuan case. I am also blessed enough to have friends who happen to be lawyers and who have remained remarkably patient with me despite my repeated badgering… But I should add that I don’t have free and easy access to any international lawyers (both of the ones I know happen to be in the Hague at the moment and are swamped with the Milosevic case) so I have had to extrapolate on my own. I would argue, however, that the law is not rocket science, after all, and should be accessible to any citizen with enough concern and commitment, so here’s my take…
This piece was largely inspired by an increasing sense of inquietude at the thought that the perpetrators (apart from Andal, Jr, who was charged before the establishment of martial law and therefore with far more binding crimes than “rebellion”, unlike Andal, Sr, the actual mastermind of the operation) might eventually be granted amnesty. Of course, they would be charged with crimes punishable under the Constitution, the Revised Penal Code and other criminal laws. But the Revised Penal Code defines rebellion as “rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing allegiance from said Government the territory of the Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof…or depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.” As it is, rebellion is notoriously difficult to prove, but it can certainly be argued that it has been variously committed by: a.) specific Muslim separatists attempting to secede; b.) certain communist rebels attempting to violently overthrow the government; and c.) a handful of soldier rebels trying to unseat the Philippine president. But by Gloria’s primary allies in Maguindanao, to whom she remains eternally indebted for those large-scale election “victories” in 2004 and 2007? Hardly.
Unfortunately, bail remains a matter of right for non-capital offenses, although there is good reason to believe that Judge Solis-Reyes may refuse to grant it simply in deference to public outrage. Whether she is safer if the perpetrators remain incarcerated or if they are eventually freed is a matter of opinion, of course. There is after all a fairly sizeable Ampatuan army still out there able to carry out the family’s bidding either way…
I am told that amnesty remains unlikely, however. For instance, we can grant “amnesty” to insurgents who lay down their arms or rogue members of the military who decide to go back into the government fold. But the perpetrators have already been charged, so that does not appear to be an option (unless the charges are thrown out altogether because of the ultimately unconstitutional establishment of martial law). On the other hand, what may very well happen (and this is something we need to remain vigilant about) is a presidential pardon after the convictions have been made. This would not happen during this presidency but in the next one, since such trials tend to take an inordinately long time, as many of you know. All the more reason why we need to be wary of Gibo Teodoro, who has brilliantly tried to distance himself from the arms caches and private armies that burgeoned wildly in Maguindanao under his watch at the DND. Similarly, highly placed (and very reliable sources) have informed me that Villar is a GMA spoiler, and that he plans to push for charter change as soon as he gets into office. GMA, once again the invisible hand, plans to sit as Prime Minister if and when this happens. Like any good businesswoman, she has simply placed her bets on several horses at the same time, so as to ensure victory no matter what.
I would therefore be interested in hearing what the remaining candidates –- Noynoy and Bro Eddie, in particular –- have to say about how they plan to make these perpetrators accountable. A lackadaisical pandering to popularity and big money, which would entail a presidential pardon, is non-negotiable, at least in so far as my personal vote is concerned. The massacre is simply far too gruesome and unprecedented to remain unpunished.
Hope for the future
GMA recently signed Republic Act 9851, which is widely regarded as a milestone for human rights:
http://www.mb.com.ph/node/233710/human-right
Of course, “with a reported 1,013 extra-judicial killings, 202 enforced disappearances, 223 political prisoners, and 1,036 incidences of torture since 2001, the Arroyo regime’s record rivals that of the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos and has drawn sharp criticism from the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Karapatan national human rights alliance group.” Oplan Bantay Laya alone, the government’s anti-insurgency programme, has already led to the loss of hundreds of human lives. How the government will deal with the issue of command responsibility over crimes against humanity (such as the Ampatuan massacre), which is specified in the law, remains to be seen.
There have been a number of other initiatives as well, although many have yet to be passed into law. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago recently presented Senate Bill Number (SBN) 1861 in the Senate (An Act Defining and Penalizing Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law and Other Serious International Crimes, Adopting Corresponding Principles of Criminal Responsibility Applying Universal Jurisdiction): http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/63375665%21.pdf
SBN 2669, which has yet to be approved as well, further aims to define and penalize crimes against international humanitarian law: the bill consolidates Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s bill with SBN 1446 by Senator Richard Gordon, SBN 583 by Senator Jinggoy Estrada, SBN 1542 by Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri and SBN 2589 by Senator Manny Villar. The counterpart bills in the Lower House include HBN 1748 by Representative Roilo Golez, HBN 2591 by Representative Simeon Datumanong and HBN 3002 by Representative Rufus Rodriguez.
So: the legislative efforts at the national level are apparently there. But the point is that the new law (RA 9851), at least in spirit and intent, will theoretically protect the rights and security of innocent civilians who are exposed to internal armed conflicts (that is, if the executive branch and its generals are ready to enforce the law against themselves). There’s the rub, see…
International options
In fact, we’ve had a pretty weak record internationally when it comes to international human rights and humanitarian law. Now Leila de Lima, whom I respect greatly (although I would argue that her energies are best spent not on unnecessary worry about Andal, Jr having been bonked on the head by an overly animated journalist), has said that, if this case is not adequately resolved by Philippine courts, the Commission on Human Rights will not hesitate to present it to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague. I could not make sense of the reference simply because the ICJ deals with conflicts between states, while the International Criminal Court (ICC) deal with conflicts within them. Clearly, this is an intra-state issue and not an inter-state one, in which case the appropriate body would be the ICC.
The Philippines has signed the Rome Statute to the ICC but regrettably has not ratified it. To his credit, Erap did sign the treaty but, when GMA came into power in 2001, she did not give the Senate the opportunity to ratify it. Her government reportedly did not want to become a member because of fears that allegations of human rights violations might be made against them in international tribunals. But the even more compelling reason, of course, has to do with our symbiotic ties to the US. More specifically, the American Servicemen Protection Act stipulates that countries that have become members of the ICC will no longer receive US military aid. In addition, any government that detains an American soldier and files a case against him/her before the ICC has to be prepared for the fact that the US will undertake military action to free its soldier. Clearly this is about currying favor in order to obtain US aid, on the one hand, just as it demonstrates the masterful strategies the US tends to deploy in matters of bilateral “exchange,” on the other.
The only other international option for now appears to be the UN Human Rights Council, specifically the International Protocol to the International Covenant to Civil and Political Rights: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/procedure.htm
While it arguably has limited enforcement mechanisms, several countries have already amended their laws as a result of decisions made by the Committee. In a number of cases, prisoners have been released and compensation paid to victims of human rights violations. In 1990, the Committee instituted a mechanism to assist it in monitoring more closely whether states parties have given effect to its final decisions, and it has been encouraging to note that they have been largely cooperative.
Of course, the Covenant requires that domestic remedies be first exhausted. In this case, therefore, the Philippines would have the obligation to prosecute the perpetrators of the massacre to begin with. If the convictions are deemed inadequate, any injured parties (survivors, relatives of loved ones) would have the right to present their case before the international body. Karen Vertido, a victim of an alleged rape in 1996, for example, eventually chose to present her case to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) after the presiding judge in the Philippines decided to acquit her attacker. While the case remains pending for now, it will eventually be resolved, reminding us that this is an option available to ordinary citizens all over the world. Technically, a strong case could be made not for genocide or state-sponsored violence, but for designating the Ampatuan massacre as a crime against humanity.
Additional recommendations:
1.) An examination of the massacre case files suggests that there had been systemic favoritism towards the Ampatuans and government mishandling throughout. Indeed, had so many journalists not fallen – had the victims “merely” been Muslims, say — the public outcry might not have been quite as vociferous. Education and training programmes for trial court judges and government personnel (specifically for victims of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, dealing with threats from the accused and cultural impartiality in general) are therefore clearly necessary. A monitoring system for trial court decisions in cases of rido and human rights atrocities should also be established to ensure their compliance with human rights conventions. Data on the number of such cases filed in prosecution offices and the courts should also be compiled and analyzed. It is further recommended that victims be provided with the right to appeal in cases of acquittal that are anchored on discriminatory grounds.
2.) Training of medical, police and military personnel is equally critical because valuable forensic evidence in this case was lost or mishandled due to a lack of technical skill. Funds will have to be allocated for providing this training since effective forensics work is at the forefront of the battle against impunity. The conditions that would allow the enforcement of the law — its enabling environment, as it were — are not yet entirely in place. While additional laws could and should be passed, it is clear that we have a serious law enforcement problem as well.
3.) The material conditions in the criminal justice system are as important, if not more so, than the mere promulgation of laws. The salaries of legal, military and medical personnel should therefore be commensurate with the type of work they routinely put in every day: otherwise, they may simply resort to corruption in order to survive. As they (trial lawyers in particular) are at the front lines of law enforcement, they should be considered to be a priority. Establishing such a system is crucial so that human rights cannot be arbitrarily ignored in cases where the government does not support the victim. Examining the process of implementing laws is even more important, in many ways, than solely monitoring legislation itself.
4.) To what can the backlog in the courts be attributed? Could more cases be turned over to the lower courts? I would be grateful for some feedback here…
5.) Education is equally vital, and the reassessment of school curricula and textbooks in terms of violence and respect for human rights may be necessary. In Muslim areas, tolerance for the realities of rido should be re-examined, just as stereotypes about Muslims in mainstream texts should be carefully scrutinized as well. How are Muslims represented in these different contexts and what alternatives to rido are presented? Do they take into account indigenous cultures, on the one hand, and international mechanisms for conflict negotiation, on the other? Rido between two pro-government Muslim clans, on the one hand, and between an insurgent group like Abu Sayyaf and a pro-government group (whether Muslim or Christian), on the other, will also have to be clearly distinguished in these texts and in public perception itself.
6.) The Mindanao civil society statement is fairly comprehensive, and addresses such issues as the disarmament of the CVOs, the total disbanding of the private armies of all political clans, and the call for government to uphold the constitutional provisions that ban private armed groups: http://durianpost.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/mindanao-civil-society-statement-on-the-ampatuan-massacre/
7.) Truth and reconciliation commissions have gone a long way in healing post-conflict societies like Rwanda, El Salvador and South Africa. They could theoretically have a profound impact on Philippine society because they can potentially open the national dialogue on impunity: http://www.ictj.org/en/news/coverage/article/3305.html
8.) Zero tolerance for bribery at all levels of society — whether they are being made or accepted by lawmakers, the judiciary, government employees, candidates for public office, or members of the military and police. Media watchdogs, as well as NGOs such as Transparency International, need to highlight such exchanges as and when they happen so the public can make its own assessments. For its part, the public needs to resist the temptation to accept bribes and to choose candidates that are merely entertaining and appealing for superficial reasons. Candidates that are known for their corruption and lack of respect for human rights, however attractive, should be regarded with wariness because they are likely to recommit these self-same crimes in future contexts.
9.) Ideally, zero tolerance for impunity should be the hallmark of the next administration. Failing this, however, it is up to civil society to peacefully demonstrate in public rallies or in petitions and in the blogosphere, etc, to make sure their voices are heard. At a certain point, the government will have to take the sheer numbers into account and respond accordingly.
The Filipino-American contribution
10.) It should be noted that the US would prefer to push for charter change because 100% foreign ownership of Philippine companies is in its interests, as opposed to the mere 40% the current Constitution allows. The US military is also primarily Republican and will no doubt support the candidate who is pro-VFA. Put rather bluntly, the potential exchange of funds from the former to the latter could be fairly sizeable indeed.
In view of the global economic crisis, the US, China and others are obviously looking for resources all over the world as well. It should be noted that the metallic deposits in Mindanao include lead, zinc, ore, iron, copper, chromite, magnetite and gold; in fact, gold mined in the region accounts for nearly half of the national gold reserves. Mindanao also has significant oil and natural gas reserves. It therefore comes as no surprise that foreign companies have had their eye on it for some time. The fact that conflict is being fomented so as to spur the US-led global arms trade is a remote (if somewhat unthinkable) possibility. Either way, the Philippines in general, and Mindanao in particular, are strategically and geopolitically critical for the US in terms of such concerns as global terrorism (Abu Sayyaf/MILF at home, Jemah Islamiyah next door, and links to Wahabi Islam in the Middle East, a region that can be directly accessed by unpatrolled waterways in the Philippines) and the threat of China in the region, for example.
So it would make sense if the US candidate of choice were Gibo, not on the merits of his person but because of where he stands ideologically in reference to the US. But since Gibo is heavily implicated in the arms caches and private armies in Maguindanao and elsewhere, and since he has supported GMA throughout (never having once criticized her), the issue is no longer about parliamentary change but about GMA’s ambitions, which we cannot allow to flourish. Fil-Am groups in the US have petitioned for $2b of the $33b in military aid to the Philippines to be tied to human rights. But since we do require arms for our own geopolitical and internal security, perhaps it might make more sense to request that all aid be tied to human rights. In other words, could we make an acceptable human rights record a prerequisite for US aid in general, whether military or otherwise?
11.) Instead of direct aid alone, perhaps the US could loan equipment to the Philippine military with a maintenance agreement (i.e., the US could maintain the inventory, audit and maintenance contract, for example). This way, the Philippines would get the equipment but would be unable to sell it on the black market. This is an urgent concern because many of the arms used by warlords, as well as by the MILF and Abu Sayyaf, are often sold on the black market by rogue members of the Philippine military (as may well be the case with the Ampatuans). The Philippines could then pay a small maintenance cost and in turn would get continued upgrades in terms of equipment and technology.
12.) An independent investigation into the massacre is urgently needed, in view of the very real possibilities of a whitewash, as Rep Howard Berman’s recent US Congressional bill has demanded: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.CON.RES.218:
13.) Independent monitors on the ground before and during the upcoming elections will also be critical to minimize widespread cheating. Fil-Ams and the international community as a whole should continue to press for this.
14.) While the Philippines greatly appreciates the support provided by the US and other countries after typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng, what is really needed in the long-term is the transfer of technology and know-how to the country. Helping us develop cutting-edge innovations and technologies — through education, training and technology transfer — would make us more genuinely competitive in the global market. This technology will naturally have to take into account the realities of the tropics and the specificities of Philippine conditions.
For instance, the former Subic base could be used as an investment conduit for the US and foreign private sector with a preference for small-medium green-tech solution projects (manufacturing and research, etc), targeting specific regions with additional livelihood programmes. This would allow the Philippines to leap-frog industrialization and make the regions more autonomous from the main power corporations currently supplying the entire country.
A final word. Fareed Zakaria would describe the Philippines to be an “illiberal democracy.” As he points out, the bedrock on which democracy is built — constitutional liberalism or the rule of law as the centerpiece of social organization itself — is far more foundationally important than voting and mere elections. We do, in fact, have a fairly decent Constitution and set of laws (although some revisions would not be unwelcome) but are ultimately weak in matters of enforcement. This is because dictatorship, impunity and corruption have tended to supersede the rule of law.
We cannot have the kind of economic development Zakaria deems necessary for the lessening of human rights violations if our leaders keep pocketing the spoils. As he so aptly put it in “The Future of Freedom”: “Modern democracies will face difficult new challenges — fighting terrorism, adjusting to globalization, adapting to an aging society – and they will have to make their system work much better than it currently does. That means making democratic decision-making effective, reintegrating constitutional liberalism into the practice of democracy, rebuilding broken political institutions and civic associations. Perhaps most difficult of all, it requires that those with immense power in our societies embrace their responsibilities, lead and set standards that are not only legal, but moral. Without this inner stuffing, democracy will become an empty shell, not simply inadequate but potentially dangerous, bringing with it the erosion of liberty, the manipulation of freedom, and the decay of common life.”
It is high time we chose leaders who would not allow democracy to become yet another empty shell, who have the inner stuffing to choose what is ethical over what is lucrative, and who would frown upon impunity as a crime against the ancestors who built our nation, the history that forged our consciousness and humanity as a whole.
Popularity: 3% [?]
So much had happened, with the tentacles of the powerful reaching even
the COMELEC. Our country is ruled by Mafia like mobsters. The COMELEC
has become partisan already. They can disqualify candidates for arbitrary reasons.
We still hope that things can improve. We have to work together to
improve things.
What COMELEC has done, is to nullify the democracy for its people, to freely choose for their candidacy. To dishonor the Law and Moral tenets.
If the Philippines continues on this unrighteous path, the nation itself will crumble from its own disparity. So, Pinoy-in-Pinas, listen well, and read the context on this column. Study it well, and judge it with great wisdom. By right, and by choice, it is your destiny.
Did police take fingerprints on the armaments dug. I saw on TV pictures of bare hands handling the guns and ammunitions. Sinadya ba ito or bobo talaga?
An excellent post! Very scholarly and well-written. Keep ‘em coming Ms. Lila.
Nice to see this kind of elaborate thinking.
Indeed, law work is not rocket science. It is knowing case history and current law, the unfortunate predicament in the Philippines being that current law is like the shambles of squatters villages along the river, barely held together with a sparse history of logical and tight legal renditions. When the courts remove fees, so that the poor are denied voice may speak, and when non-attorneys can present cases, so that the brave rather than the house shills can speak, and when judges are evaluated and paid based on priority, efficiency, and logic, so that building-block cases can be registered, then social order can get restacked case by case. Until then, the notion that the Philippines is a “Nation of Laws” is absurd.
Joe
Few observations may be in order, if I may.
1. It is not quite the case that we have very few lawyers. We seem to have plenty of them. Problem is, the best ones are apparently under the employ of big-time personalities or entities and their big time cases.
2. “Precedents are set”. True enough, the Supreme Court itself is in the mood for precedent-setting that lawyers should someday boycott or rally right at the door step of the High Tribunal. But problem is, nothing in our own history has ever happened as if everything that such a Court does, is perfectly constitutional, legal and moral.
3. If our own institutions cannot take care of our state of affairs, with less effectiveness and efficiency can international bodies sort of ‘meddle or intervene’ in anybody’s behalf. But let us see.
4. Simple logic can easily train our analysis that indeed, the case of the so-called Maguindanao genocide or massacre is state-sponsored and if we go by ordinary spatio-temporal analysis, all this prior to the massacre should have been under the care of then defense secretary, Gibo Teodoro. Shouldn’t he be investigated, at the very least (just asking) than be the first to sort of condemn it?
5. There could not be any kind of counterflow in the judicial culture we presently have. All cases, by precedent, flow upward up to the Supreme Court but not the other way around. To do so would mean the High Tribunal has begun to become inutile. Given the cultural mindset of anyone hiring a lawyer to his case, the pattern is from below to top.
6. The US military aid in terms of surplus (already overused 6 x 6 army trucks, M151 Kennedy jeeps, navy vessels, tora tora aircrafts, US handed down helicopters, firearms and similar ordnance – all these are useless for the Philippine military. We end up paying more for less. And the kind of agreement we then had shows that all maintenance costs are deducted from the overall amount of military package at costs one cannot imagine.
7. Neither can we supplant our entire educational system with another, can we? It is like having to begin where civilization ends. Besides, no college or university will teach anyone how immoral a massacre ought to be universally understood since it is already a stuff of any normal person’s conscience, isn’t it?
8. Things are truly in the works. GMA will be prime minister and this proceeds according to plan – replete with the three hydral elements of dictatorship, impunity, corruption as the good author mentioned.
9. Is there any hope? How much time is left to save the ‘pond’? One expert said, “Congress is broken”. Would it be worth bringing the broken pieces together as one piece or supplant the whole “committee of the whole”?
10. There is clear and present danger that the automated election system will be visited with the three hydral elements but let us all watch how this thing will happen.
I take issue with your items 5 & 6. As to “counter flow” in item 5, there is a real need for exactly that–the high court needs to send a lot of its cases back to the lower courts for the decisions that should have been made there in the first place. This inforces discipline in the court system (even as it might produce less income for the supremes).
As for item 6, we are blessed that the US witholds its more powerful weapons–since the Philippine military have, since WWII never used such weapons for anything other than killing other Filipinos.
It’s time and past time when we should all be asking ourselves how we managed to become so comfortable. Are we afraid that change will bring too much discomfort? Every traffic enforcer we pay off on the street rather than submitting to the justice system, even for minor infractions, perpetuates the culture of impunity. And the list could go on and on—paying “fixers” to circumvent ordinary transactions with government offices, minor bribes to BIR officials to reduce tax loads—all those little things that fit so comfortably into easing everyday life.
Are we afraid of effective government? Do we secretly fear reform because it might well mean we will have to take some more difficult routes in the future? In my mind, I see people shaking their heads, “But how can we trust the government,” they ask? Well, that’s true, as far as it goes, but “reform” is not something we can prescribe for others while remaining unreconstructed ourselves. What good would this self-reformation do? Well, just maybe, if we ourselves depended less on the small-scale impunity of day-to-day life, we might feel more emboldened to demand the same of our leaders.
Lila, can I just say, “Welcome to Filipino Voices.” It is awesome to have you onboard!
“Instead of direct aid alone, perhaps the US could loan equipment to the Philippine military with a maintenance agreement (i.e., the US could maintain the inventory, audit and maintenance contract, for example).”
the only problem i can see is that this would require US presence to manage the materiel. that is currently illegal. otherwise, nice observations.
The proposal is 10 years behind the times. The approach with regards foreign aid is for the technical skills to be provided by the country receiving the aid. Their country, their people, their discipline.
The old mantra of white superiors giving both money and marching orders is old hat. The desired model — the white gods provide the money and the locals use the money for local development projects using their (locals’) rules and their (locals’) supervisors. Wasn’t it just a few months ago that Republika Pilipinas applauded Miriam Santiago when she berated the World Bank for insinuating that Pilipino highway construction vendors are corrupt?
Of course, the white gods provide money only for causes that they believe in, like women’s rights, children’s health care, Reproductive Health issues, environment, or building highways. Taking sides in clan-versus-clan warfare or daring to decide which construction consortiums are corrupt and which are not becomes risky — to be avoided — “interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation”.
My gut tells me I’m going to like the presence of Ms. Lila here in FV. I just hope she has the strength of heart to ward off the mischief when the naughty boys and girls here start their pounces.
HAPPY NEW YEAR , Lila! HAPPY NEW YEAR, Nick, HAPPY NEW YEAR all you FV guys and girls!
WELCOME 2010!
Oo nga pala Bert, ain’t miss Lila awesome. She blew me away. Anyway, Happy New Year sa iyo at mga pamilia natin. Tulog muna ako. I hope when I wake up, pinoy-in-pinas would be a better place.
LOL!
Happy New Year
Happy New year to all!
“….a preference for small-medium green-tech solution projects (manufacturing and research, etc), targeting specific regions with additional livelihood programmes. This would allow the Philippines to leap-frog industrialization…”
Hhhmm, ‘kunswelo de bobo.’ Or the beauty of being an development laggard?
Well, since we kinda missed out on the manufacturing boom before the 2008 financial meltdown changed the globalization dynamics, let’s go for clean industries and renewable energy sources like solar and wind power, eco-tourism, and the like.
Not really to leap-frog, but to preserve and protect the environment.
Hello, all! Thanks for the kind and thoughtful feedback. It’s a pleasure to be a part of this community.
Good points too, GabbyD and Phil. Manilamac and Primer also left me some very interesting comments, which I can see when I’m editing but have apparently disappeared on this page! Any advice on how to retrieve them so I can respond to everyone’s points?
Bert, not to worry — I’ve had my share of trolls in the past… ;-)
Anyway, thank u again and warm wishes for the New Year!
“The Philippines has signed the Rome Statute to the ICC but regrettably has not ratified it. To his credit, Erap did sign the treaty but, when GMA came into power in 2001, she did not give the Senate the opportunity to ratify it. Her government reportedly did not want to become a member because of fears that allegations of human rights violations might be made against them in international tribunals. But the even more compelling reason, of course, has to do with our symbiotic ties to the US. More specifically, the American Servicemen Protection Act stipulates that countries that have become members of the ICC will no longer receive US military aid. In addition, any government that detains an American soldier and files a case against him/her before the ICC has to be prepared for the fact that the US will undertake military action to free its soldier. Clearly this is about currying favor in order to obtain US aid, on the one hand, just as it demonstrates the masterful strategies the US tends to deploy in matters of bilateral ‘exchange,’ on the other.” – Lila
The “masterful strategies” via a US federal law of protecting US military personnel and US officials against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court and blackmailing other countries to toe the line in various ways fetter efforts to prosecute “the battle against impunity and its many layers” and weaken the rule of law.
US exceptionalism of this sort is I think no different from privileging certain favored warlords.
Abe,
“US exceptionalism of this sort is I think no different from privileging certain favored warlords.”
I suppose it depends on whether you see the motives of the US as being the same as the warlords.
The US does not wish to be constrained by legal notions founded on competing motives or revenge or jealousy. It has more confidence in its own standards and systems of justice than those of countries with broken moral foundation or bent notions of justice such as found in the Philippines.
The ICC is not exactly an “apolitical” body, and therein lies the rub.
Ms. Arroyo had a difficult decision to make. I think she chose right, you think she chose wrong. Our premises differ and therefore our views on this will naturally differ.
Next issue.
Joe
I trust US justice more than ICC justice.
One of the reasons why a law penalizing war crimes and genocide, now RA 9851, was that it is apparent that PGMA’s administration will not ratify it. There is no assurance that the next administration will do either.
Quite a number of elements of RA 9851 was taken from the Rome Statute even though this was not among the international treaties referred to in the new law.
Anyway, having RA 9851 should be heralded as welcomed development. According to my sources at the Senate and HOuse of Representatives, the AFP and DND participated well in giving their inputs during the Committee Hearings and technical working group (TWG) meetings. At the Senate, former general and now Senator Pong Biazon was the last to interpellate Sen. Gordon and was seemingly the AFP’s and DND’s spokersperson. We can check this in the senate’s legislative history of RA 9851.
The challenge now is for judges, prosecutors, lawyers, military and police personnel to be acquainted w/ the new law and also international humanitarian law.
I just hope and pray that RA 9851 will deter or repress violations of IHL in the Philippines…
A blissful new year to all!!!
TC
PS: Let’s thank the Red Cross for their success in lobbying for RA 9851…
Thanks for this .Yung pinost ko bicam stage pa lang pala.
I was there during the Biazon interpellation with Gordon.
My dad being a senior consultant of biazon,found the person to propose some ammendments and draft the talking points for the interpellation.
The inputs or talking points was from a former Judge advocate general.
I have to agree to this. I flinched at this statement (or of any statement) of anybody just “masterfully” manipulating laws to benefit a few at the cost of justice. I don’t think motives don’t even count. The means is still crucial in the execution of justice not just the ends.
correction:
History records that since WWII, the US has not manipulated laws to benefit the few, but to the benefit the many in the free world. If the method is hegemony, the ends are good, and the motive matters. So, again, we disagree.
Joe
Joe,
Well, okay I agree that motives could be material assuming that the motive is good. But I hope that the U.S. is not for the ‘good-for-me’ kind of goodness. It’s clear that granting immunity to U.S. soldiers from prosecution is just that kind.
An example would probably be on stories of rape cases by U.S. soldiers while they are on other countries. These U.S. soldiers are protected by the military brass themselves that somehow makes it easier for these criminals not to be held back. Some women are even silenced in making confessions of being abused because of this kind of protection of the U.S. government for their own and the lost hope the women knowing that they don’t stand a chance in court.
Non Battle Scars: U.S. Military ‘Rape Victim’ shares her pain”
If they can do it to their own, what more of other countries? Of course this can happen to any military from any country. But the point here is on the issue of Impunity which weakens the rule of law and in which any country is not immune of.
Joe and Edward,
Even if we suppose that motives count, we can possibly speculate at this point that among the motives of the Ampatuans, the suspects in the Maguindanao massacre, is to keep clan’s hegemony in that region of the country.
Can we similarly speculate that among the motives of George W. and the neocons in prosecuting the Iraq war (the “wrong war” at least according to President Obama) which also let off the massacre (and gruesome torture) of innocent Iraqi civilians, is also to turn American’s hegemony in that region of the world?
(Remember that the same voices who had urged Clinton invade Iraq demanded George W. attack Iraq by appealing to the tragedy of 9/11 as the alibi to enforce their pre-9/11 desire for an American invasion of Iraq despite information – if not deliberately distorted or mishandled by criminal reckless imprudence – that there was no a serious and imminent terrorist threat by Iraq to the United States.)
In terms of peeling off those layers of impunity (the subject of Ms. Lila’s post), we are at least seeing that the “broken” judicial system in the Philippines is trying to make justice work as to the warlords of Maguindanao. Do we see the same efforts happening as to the holy warriors of America?
How do we then measure America’s “confidence in its own standards and systems of justice” when we see George W. and Rumsfeld running around scot-free as if those “collateral damage” (many innocent civilians were also buried alive during those bombing sorties) and those “interrogation techniques” never took place?
But please don’t get me wrong, JoeAm. I am a great admirer of the US “jury system,” one of the few enduring remnants of people-powered democracy in America. Unfortunately, this great judicial system seems unavailing to victims outside of the realm.
Have you ever been a member of a USA jury, Abe?
Have you ever served as a USA jury member, Abe?
UP n, I’ve seen the movie and read the novel in part.
I thought for the USA jury, the jury decides on guilt/innocence of the accused. The accused are the perpetrators, not the victims.Is Abe trying to slide some propaganda or something with his comment about”… judicial system unnavailing to victims outside of the realm.”? Or does Abe mean that a jury of American citizens should have ruled on that Corporal Smith rape trial?Abe has confused me.
I share the same sentiment. I also think America’s justice system is a very good role model for other countries to follow. But it wouldn’t be bad for America to extend this justice and fairness to other countries and not just to its own citizens.
I read somewhere that warcrimes accused on Germans in World War II was on the same gravity that George Bush should be tried of. (I can’t remember where sorry).
The Show Trial of Century :(Saddam Hussein)
Maybe they don’t trust justice effected by others. I will also second Joe America’s reasons: jealousy of other nations.
The exceptionalism displayed is totally different to impunity enjoyed by our elites. Even their own rules DO NOT apply to them. America’s do.
Happy Noynoy Year!
“The Philippines has signed the Rome Statute to the ICC but regrettably has not ratified it. To his credit, Erap did sign the treaty but, when GMA came into power in 2001, she did not give the Senate the opportunity to ratify it. Her government reportedly did not want to become a member because of fears that allegations of human rights violations might be made against them in international tribunals.”
progress report:
http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2009/1005_gordon1.asp
Press Release
October 5, 2009
Bicam panel approves IHL bill
Gordon: bill seeks to punish crimes against humanity
“The salaries of legal, military and medical personnel should therefore be commensurate with the type of work they routinely put in every day: otherwise, they may simply resort to corruption in order to survive.”
as for lawyers maybe the governmenment lawyers lack pay.
but I agree with Primer’s comment here:
It is not quite the case that we have very few lawyers. We seem to have plenty of them. Problem is, the best ones are apparently under the employ of big-time personalities or entities and their big time cases.
medical personnel.
We see doctors train to become nurses just to go abroad so I agree They are not earning enough.The nurses themselves go abroad, we cannot lock them by a binding contract because we can’t pay them.
Police and military
are resources are stretched to the limit for the combined man power of 240,000 of our uniformed service(police/afp). we pay them above 80 billion for salaries,training,etc.(personnel service)
almost the same amount goes to pension .(number of pensioners almost equal to active duty)
I am not saying that the suggestion is wrong,as a matter of fact it is a good suggestion and we can add adding man power as a sugggestion.all we need is to resolve our fiscal crisis.(ouch)
Having a lean and mean force is no longer a good suggestion because we already see that the civilian support forces can be easily be controlled by warlords.
I might have a problem for military as security escorts,but I will hold my piece.
Military should not do security escort. PNP should do security escort. If not PNP, then outsource “providing security escort”-duties to, say, a made-in-Pilipinas “blackwater”-private enterprise.
For fleet lease of military equipment.
The problem with leasing is even if you have an option to upgrade obsolete equipment you still end up with obsolete equipment because it is costlty to upgrade.
I don’t know if leasing can resolve the problem of inventory.
You are still dealing with suppliers and vendors here, money us still the subject.
If our procurement laws still cannot plug the loopholes of our procurement system, I don’t see the difference in leasing.
At one point, the PNP opted to repair x number of M16 armalites rifles than buy brand new firearms for the same costs?
What is this? It must have something to do with who brokered the contracts or agreements. Shame on them.
Nice long dissertation. However it can be encapsulated in a short sentence. The necessity of constructing institutions of governance. within a state and eventually organizing global institutions of governance.
The greatest challenges in the future will come from failing states.
But the root cause will be the ever evolving economic systems and structures that are at the root of the politics around the world.
All the present probelms today are rooted in the historical effects of Western colonisation of the globe earlier in the 20th century.
The utter failure of the command and control economics led to a swing to the right. Most of the filed or failing states today are a direct result of the disengagment of both the West and the Soviet bloc from government intervention in their colonies and semi-colonies. The replaced them with bankers and economists preaching the glory of free markets and free trade. Two countries stood out rejecting these formulas entirely and now the west is seeing the need for changing both economic and political models to suite the the changing times. Government and governance counts and should be front and center.
Hence the need for governance both domestically and globally in all spheres of human activity starting with economic.
U.S. and European exceptionalism grudgingly are reluctant to allow the new kids on the block to participate in setting up the policies and programs for economic and poltical institutions globally.
The Philippines is the poster child in the East Asia for becoming the failed state of the region. The Americans bear a direct responsibility for the same neo-colonial policies keeping the country primitive.
They continue to fund and arm corrupt governments. America was the author and continues to be responbile for the mess in Afganistan by supporting the military in Pakistan who are the puppet masters of the Taliban and contue to fund the militant Islamic groups in their conflict with India over Kashmir.
America in its foreign policy is the poster child for good intentions leading the globe to hell. The latest financial crisis rooted in the U.S. was bound to happen after the turmoil in the 80′s and 90′s.
Passing the structural and systemic problems of the U.S. to the world can no longer be done. The call for a neutral internation medium of exchange is a siren’s call that the old ways are finished. Otherwise we will have Al Qaeda types all over the emerging markets of the world.
The U.S. cannot contnue to suck the resources of the globe to sustain their lifestyle.
Hello, all. Thanks for such interesting observations. Manilamac, I absolutely agree with u. Okay, I’ll try to address some of the issues raised here.
I.) From Primer:
I agree that Gibo should be investigated but will add that he has certainly done a “great” job of distancing himself from the arms caches and private armies. But the fact that his PR people r so good shouldn’t allow people to forget that, by virtue of command responsibility alone, he is greatly responsible for the massacre. I also take your point about the fact that the flow upward of cases in the courts might be inevitable.
About education, however, what I was referring to was “historiography” or the writing of history. Who is the dominant race/class/gender/ethnic group in a school textbook for grade school and high school kids? How are they taught to view difference and “otherness”? Since we are not only a nation of Christians, it is important to look at how Muslims are described and represented to our young people. If respect and tolerance are taught at these formative stages, perhaps we might be less accepting of the types of all-out wars that Erap was so fond of.
II.) From UP n Grad:
1.) “THE proposal (which one?) is ten years behind?” From what I can see, you were only referring to *one* since there were after all quite a few that I raised. Don’t u think throwing out the entire kit and kaboodle is slightly simplistic? Do u have any proposals of your own? If so, I would be most interested to read them.
2.) The fact is, we ARE broke and are currently undergoing a fiscal crisis. Even if our leaders didn’t steal today, we would still have enormous budgetary issues in large part because of all the debts we have yet to pay, no thanks to Mr. Marcos. Where exactly do u propose we get the money…?
3.) The “white gods” are hardly homogeneous. There is a great deal (imperialism, neo-colonialism, the arms trade, sustenace of corrupt regimes, materialism, etc, etc) that we should reject, even as there is a great deal that we can learn from them. U will find when you read me that I don’t favor blanket assessments in general and prefer a little more precision.
4.) The UN operates on the notion that national sovereignty should be respected. So u will be hard put to find countries that will meddle in the internal warfares in any country. This has to do with international law itself. If Stalin, Saddam or Pol Pot, say, want to exterminate large numbers of their own people, the international community technically has no say if those people are within the boundaries of their own respective countries and happen to be from the same “racial” group. Now if one dominant group exterminates another group (Rwanda, Sudan, etc), or one country invades another, then the internatonal community can impose sanctions on that country or even attack it. If u notice, Saddam was tried not for what he did to the Iraqis (because the law, which I don’t agree with, implies that he can do whatever he wants to his own people since he was elected by them) but for what he did to the KURDS and the KUWAITIS. So, apart from moral condemnation, you’re not going to get more from foreign funders and the international community when it comes to internal issues like clan warfare.
5.) Donors choose their causes all the time: they regard that as their prerogative, which arguably it is. I mean, it’s their money, after all. The majority fund children (the sexiest and most saleable issue) and the environment, with women and development lagging much further behind.
III.) From Phil Manila:
What I was trying to say is that we also need to strengthen the regions and to decentralize in general — hence the word “leapfrog.” Much of the colossal fall-out from the Ondoy flooding was in part due to the demographic concentration in Manila, where there are far too many human beings already.
I was also implying that we need to break the monopolistic hold that Meralco and Napocor have on our energy systems at home.
IV.) From GabbyD:
Perhaps the US could designate a Philippine body to administer the material?
V.) From Abe, Joe, Edward and BrianB:
Very interesting discussion. I think that countries in general are impelled by the notion of self-interest. It’s basic utilitarianism, after John Stuart Mill. So, unless something is in a country’s strategic and economic interests, they simply won’t do it, for the most part. This is not only true of the US but of other countries as well. There is no reason why we can’t call a spade a spade here, Joe.
But I don’t agree with meshing the US with the warlords either, Abe, because I tend to be wary of sweeping analogies in general. And, as Joe says, the US DOES follow its own laws, which is more than can be said of the Ampatuans with regards to Philippine law. I think BrianB encapsulates this quite nicely.
Having said this, I do think that Abe’s point about American exceptionalism stands. Genocide (which was the subject of my MA thesis, so I had to research this quite a bit) could be fought a whole lot more if the US were to ratify the Rome Statute to the ICC. And I think it’s faulty reasoning on the part of the US or the Philippines to say that they don’t want to ratify because they don’t want to be prosecuted by the ICC. The point is: then why commit crimes for which they might be prosecuted in the first place? To say that the ICC is merely “political” is a cop-out, in my view. After all, you can’t just prosecute the US because you don’t like them for one reason or another: there is still the small matter of the *burden of proof*. You still need to PROVE that someone did something, and that can be hard to do. I wouldn’t throw out the ICC as a whole because I think it can go a long way in fighting impunity, if only we were to let it.
I also agree with Abe that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld should be tried, and am disappointed that Obama has apparently decided to let this go. I know he doesn’t want to squander his political capital, particularly since his domestic position is fairly precarious at the moment, but still…
And I think it’s faulty reasoning on the part of the US or the Philippines to say that they don’t want to ratify because they don’t want to be prosecuted by the ICC. The point is: then why commit crimes for which they might be prosecuted in the first place?
Good question. The US should withdraw all its troops and NGO personnel from places where US citizens may find themselves committing commit crimes actions or re-actions for which they might be prosecuted in the first place.
Thanks for the “A-” Ms. Lila but I still think I deserve a perfect “A” (haha) because far from being “sweeping” I’ve been quite careful in trying to FOCUS the analogy on “motive.”
But, seriously, the analogy can become even more striking when we cite specifics. Think for example of the Nicaraguan right-wing guerillas during the contra war and the CIA-created terrorists (bin Laden and gang) during the Afghan war where in both instances the drug war (CIA was known to have been involved in the cocaine trade during both wars) was sacrificed to prosecute the Cold War. Hasn’t the “burgeoning” of private armies of warlords like the Ampatuans’ been abetted by the government as part of a similar strategy to fight the Mindanao War?
In fact, the following observation of yours is apropos: “The fact that conflict is being fomented so as to spur the US-led global arms trade is a remote (if somewhat unthinkable) possibility. Either way, the Philippines in general, and Mindanao in particular, are strategically and geopolitically critical for the US in terms of such concerns as global terrorism (Abu Sayyaf/MILF at home, Jemah Islamiyah next door, and links to Wahabi Islam in the Middle East, a region that can be directly accessed by unpatrolled waterways in the Philippines) and the threat of China in the region, for example.”
Anyway, the point being missed by JoeAm and BrianB (as well as by your response, unfortunately) is my clear emphasis on the duality of the standards of the rule of law that America maintains: one, a near-perfect judicial system for domestic consumption, and another, the law of the Wild West beyond the American frontiers, or the “meshing” (to borrow your word) of a regime of public accountability and rule of law at home with the exercise of power with impunity abroad.
No, no, Abe — that was definitely an A! I don’t have to agree with someone entirely to respect their opinion and certainly they’re right to it. When I was teaching, I frequently gave As to students I didn’t agree with, provided that their points were empirical and well-argued, as they have been in this case.
I agree with u on a number of issues, including the fact that the US follows the rule of law far more on the domestic front than it does internationally. I thought, by saying that I agreed with u on exceptionalism, that I had already made that clear. And my own essay talks about bilateral trade agreements the US engages in that blackmail developing countries into not supporting institutions like the ICC. As a UN employee, I unfortunately see and hear about this sort of thing all the time. In fact, under international law, it’s a crime to use aircrafts as a weapon against civilians. Technically speaking, therefore, 9/11 could have been deemed a crime against humanity: an international tribunal (like the one for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, for example) could have been formed in NY, and the Saudis and Egyptians who were responsible could have been tried in the Hague. Instead, Bush chose this illegal war on Iraq. This is definitely a sore point for me anyway because I have a number of friends who work with el-Baradei at the IAEA. Whatever one might think of him, the point is that they worked their butts off to do the inspections as quickly as they could. They were almost finished, in fact, and everything could have been resolved with far less violence, had Bush not decided on this (lucrative and bogus) war. Bush pretty much ignored the wishes of the entire UN General Assembly on this, so I definitely hear u. In fact, I’d say he took exceptionalism to a whole new level entirely…
The only area where I disagree with u on the US domestic front is with regards to the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld triad, who have gotten away scott-free when they shouldn’t. So there is impunity in the US too.
But with respect to its comportment abroad, the US is definitely focused on self-interest, like other countries. But since a great deal of international law is ultimately not enforceable (there’s no body to ultimately enforce, which is part of the problem, and there is no law that says you can’t be greedy and selfish as a country), I’m just saying that this is less about the law not being followed as it is a fact that realpolitik indicates that countries are primarily selfish in their motives in general.
Please see my recent blog on the global arms trade, in which I place much of the responsibility on the feet of the US, even as I acknowledge that there HAS been a change in US foreign policy since Obama:
http://lilashahani.blogspot.com/2009/11/of-arms-and-man-global-arms-trade-and.html
I see what u mean now about motives, tho — definitely both are guilty of pure self-interest. But u will definitely get people balking after the Ampatuan massacre if you say that the US is just like the warlords. Not all Americans and crafters of US foreign policy would agree with raping women, shooting/slashing up their genitals and burying some of the victims alive. Some Americans, like Filipinos and others, are real assholes, while others are pretty decent. And I maintain that there is still a difference between greed and gratuitous violence. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the contras and the Afghan heroin trade — absolutely agreed. But USAID, US NGOs and others have also done quite a bit to help us, as the recent Ondoy relief efforts have shown. Granted, Mill would say that that is self-interest too (you help others so u can feel good about yourself, so ultimately everything is about self-interest in the end) but I would argue that some forms are far more destructive than others. In short, they’re not all the same.
“The only area where I disagree with u on the US domestic front is with regards to the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld triad, who have gotten away scott-free when they shouldn’t. So there is impunity in the US too.” – Lila
I guess that’s the pragmatist side of Obama, the Washington politician. He may be a disappointment to his progressive base, but not America. And I agree with you: Americans, although not necessarily official America, are fundamentally just.
Thanks, Lila. I will continue to learn.
“… need to strengthen the regions and to decentralize in general — hence the word “leapfrog.” …
…need to break the monopolistic hold that Meralco and Napocor have on our energy systems at home.”
Hhhmmm. Over-optimistic statement. A tad Pollyanna?
We need practical, realistic problem solving. As what one presidential candidate commented of the Mindanao problem, there are issues too big for one administration to solve.
GO GORDON!
Phil, just because we may not have the same candidate doesn’t mean everything I say is dubious. That’s a tad simplistic, don’ u think? Surely u can think beyond tribalism? U don’t look at someone and say: ay, kakampi ni ano iyan, i-reject nga natin lahat ng idea niya. U know? Even Gibo, who I don’t agree with at all, occasionally has some decent ideas.
A lot of development scholars talk about the importance of decentralization all the time — it’s hardly a new concept…
As for Meralco and Napocor, I stand by that statement. We’re gonna have to start looking for alternatives, precisely not just for this administration but for the next ones.
As for Gordon, now THAT’S Pollyana. He’s not a bad guy, but he’s not really even in the running, is he? But, hey, it’s a free country. I’m not gonna knock u because of your preferences.
VI.) From Karl Garcia:
Karl (and Primer), I take your point about lawyers. But if you re-read my “Hope for the future” section, Karl, u will find that I did in fact mention Gordon’s bill. Please also note that it is still in the bicameral stage at this point.
As for your police and military point, which point of mine specifically were u referring to? I mentioned the military and police several times kasi. Do u mean that there’s not enough money for better training as well? If so, I would argue that we still need to make this a priority.
VII.) From JAG:
I wouldn’t mesh the US and Europe in terms of exceptionalism either (because they’re quite different), although I see your point. But, yes, the US DOES continue to fund corrupt governments, which is a real problem, although I would add that Pakistan is quite complicated because there are definitely competing voices there, just as there are in India.
It should also be noted that US foreign policy HAS changed since Bush’s term, particularly in terms of the arms trade and the arms treaty. Obama and Hillary do deserve some credit here. Please see my recent blog on this: http://lilashahani.blogspot.com/2009/11/of-arms-and-man-global-arms-trade-and.html
As for the US sucking the resources of the globe, I absolutely agree, but would add that China follows as a close second, as was frequently pointed out at the Copenhagen conference…
Is it true that Indonesia is the third and that the kaingero system produces more toxic fumes than all the cars, trucks, SUV’s put together?
1.) China/US (they keep arguing about who is worse but they r essentially neck and neck on this one); and 2.) India.
http://www.worldculturepictorial.com/blog/content/cop15-breakthrough-worlds-top-3-co2-emitters-agree-a
I have heard this about the kaingero system too but don’t have any figures.
“Is it true that Indonesia is the third and that the kaingero system produces more toxic fumes than all the cars, trucks, SUV’s put together?”
Just think of all the vanished forests and orangutans in Sumatra replaced by Palm trees .
Now Malaysia is no longer the leader in palm oil, thanks to their forest for fuel thinggie.
gayahin kaya natin,nagawa na natin dati sa pag tanggal ng mga puno at pagpalit nito ng coconut, dagdagan pa natin ng jathropha at pati palm tutal we already are already deforested.
Greenpeace says (…note: a few folks question the reliability of greenpeace statistics)
Greenpeace says:
from : http://www.greenpe ace-DOT- org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/science/co2-emissions
Re:training
What I am saying is that our budget has 427 billion alloted for personnel services which includes training aside from salaries .
As for The share of our uniformed service(police and soldiers) as far as personnel services are concerned amounts to 80 billion more or less.
We just increased their salaries last year.(but it is never enough)
In addition the pension for our uniformed services is still appropriated, that is a ticking time bomb.
Notwithstanding what I mentioned above
I agree that training and pay should still be a priority
and….
Thanks I reread the portion.(Hope for the future)sorry bout that.
plus..
The fleet lease I mentioned was about the maintenace agreement that GabbyD mentioned that would involve the US.
Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying, Karl.
G-7 exceptionalism exists on the condition that Europe agrees to maintain the dollar as premier universal currency in exchange for the U.S. carrying the brunt of military defense. If the U.S. were to withdraw from NATO there would be no NATO.
Europe is still ruled by nationalist ideals of the differing European states. The French still do not trust the Germans as the Germans themselves still do not trust themselves with military power.
Hence the global economy still means the predomiant economies of the U.S., Europe and Japan. They account for the consumption of most of the resources. Why do you lump China’s carbon emissions with the consumption of resources? The emerging markets still depend on the export markets of the G-7 economies. China’s household consumption still is only 25 % of both the U.S. and Europe combined.
China is still a predomiantly poor country.
True on a number of counts, JAG. And you r right: there IS a distinction between resource use and emissions. The US is going to have to address this resource-depletion. Equally, a few countries (the US, China, India) r also going to have to start lowering their emissions pronto.
Thanks.
I would rather read a piece intended for a refereed journal – most of the times like the one from Lila.
And for being most obliging to reply to comments, that makes such a person a true intellectual. The forum has raised the bar of public discourse on matters mundane.
That’s very kind of u, Primer. I practically had to pinch myself when I saw your lengthy and substantive response to my piece. For a writer, such comments from a reader can be such a pleasure — thanks again.
Oh, but I don’t agree that these r mundane matters, ha? We’re talking about our country’s future, after all!
“I did in fact mention Gordon’s bill. Please also note that it is still in the bicameral stage at this point”
Now I am the one who needs clarification.(minor only)
RA9851 is already signed into law and :
This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2669 and House Bill No. 6633 was finally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on October 14, 2009 and October 16, 2009, respectively.
Sorry, I was not clear. I was referring to what u had posted, which u noted to twilight cruz as well:
http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2009/1005_gordon1.asp
Again, I draw your attention to the same section in my piece: “SBN 2669, which has yet to be approved as well, further aims to define and penalize crimes against international humanitarian law: the bill consolidates Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s bill with SBN 1446 by Senator Richard Gordon, SBN 583 by Senator Jinggoy Estrada, SBN 1542 by Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri and SBN 2589 by Senator Manny Villar. The counterpart bills in the Lower House include HBN 1748 by Representative Roilo Golez, HBN 2591 by Representative Simeon Datumanong and HBN 3002 by Representative Rufus Rodriguez.
So: the legislative efforts at the national level are apparently there. But the point is that the new law (RA 9851), at least in spirit and intent, will theoretically protect the rights and security of innocent civilians who are exposed to internal armed conflicts (that is, if the executive branch and its generals are ready to enforce the law against themselves). There’s the rub, see…”
So, essentially, we agree, Karl: there have been initiatives (not all of which were passed), now there is a new law (which is a consolidation of the other bills), and all that remains is for the relevant parties to enforce it…
ok,many Thanks Lila!
“Surely u can think beyond tribalism?” – Lila
Now, where did does come from?
Surely, you don’t think of me as part of the A.M. crowd (read as “Ampatuans of Maguindanao”).
My practical problem solving plaint supports/is supported by Mr. J ag’s NEDA/Washington Consensus paradigm.
Not to be defeatist but the the Philippines is the poster boy for the saying ‘the more things change, the more they remain the same’ or something to that effect.
Well, I might ask u the same: where did that Pollyana remark come from anyway, Phil? After all, we’re just throwing ideas around here. I wasn’t offended but I have to admit I was a bit bemused.
Again, I stand by by my position on the importance of decentralization and cultivating alternative forms of energy.
But if u are not rejecting these (very matter-of-fact!) suggestions because of where u think I stand politically (what did Gordon or anyone have to do with it? The discussion was between us. And what did u mean: that Gordon had better alternatives in terms of a, b, or c? If so, why not simply say so in the interests of keeping the discussion concrete? I wasn’t clear what u were referring to, frankly) but because u happen to think there is no hope for the Philippines in general, then I would disagree with u even more. Because that would mean that u aren’t tribalistic (in which case I stand corrected) but R cynical instead.
Things don’t improve when u look at the world only through the lens of your own particular lifetime. If u look at the sweep of history, on the other hand, u will notice that, however incrementally, societies see improvements all the time. Today, the US is riddled with problems but, thanks to the civil rights movement, etc, there have been enormous changes in terms of racial, gender and sexual orientation rights, for example. So too in countries like South Africa, for example. In the Philippines, where we r drowning in problems as well, human rights violations on the part of the government r still not as bad as they were during the Marcos years.
So I’m not an incorrigible optimist (hardly — I get pretty demoralized too) but I intend to do my damnest in my lifetime to help people in Pinas and elsewhere, at least to the best of my abilities. Cynicism is not allowed us because far too many human beings r suffering, and far too much is at stake.
That’s just where I happen to stand, Phil. I still think that’s no excuse for not being constructive and not doing our bit.
P.S. It’s so much easier to deconstruct (that’s a central aspect of my work) than it is to build.
“…what did Gordon or anyone have to do with it? ”
Hhhmmm, wasn’t it clear from the context of what I said that we need practical, realistic problem-solvers?
Among the presidential wannabes, Richard Gordon, has the proven track record in government service (as SBMA Chairman, DOT Secretary, etc.) of accomplishment and some remaining integrity to deliver;c and prevent RP from becoming a failed state. And may I say, in this lifetime and generation.
Think about it…
Okay, Phil, fair enough. I may not agree with your choice, but you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. As for Gordon himself, mahabang usapan iyan. Maybe the subject of another blog…
What a very intelligent and well articulated piece. In the end, each of us the Filipinos have to choose to change and we can start by being more moral and good citizens. Are we paying our taxes in full, not resorting to bribery just because it is expedient, and reporting any wrongdoing that we see?. A whistleblower policy and protection of whistlebloweres should be in place at every level of government. Even a whistleblower hotline. A mass media campaign, church sermon, education lectures on the evils of bribery and corruption which is the root of all evils that our nation faces. Everyone has a responsibility to do all of these things. I see so many fires happening in the country. Fire department should educate people and everyone should be reminded on safety and handling of combustible materials. I shudder at the emissions from these fires. Good idea on planting Jatropha and other biofuel plants Karl. I heard bamboos are good in oxygen delivery same as acanthus and they grow like weeds. I am doing research on carbon trading which is becoming a big business. Filipinos are involved in treefarms in Costa Rica planting trees that are sutiable for furniture making. I got a lot of ideas being inspired by this piece. Congratulations on writing this piece Lila. I have now read your previous blogs and consider me as a fan.
Thank u, Rosa — I was starting to wonder where all the women in FV were! I would love to read what you have to say about carbon trading — it’s a subject I’m still trying to learning about myself… And thanks for checking out my other blog too. :-)
Rosa,
Thanks for making that look good, I was actually bashing deforestation and our practice(in the seventies) of changing our trees to coconuts.(see what having a positive outlook can do).You made me look at the bright side.
Anyways,at least we no longer have to destroy forests like indonesia and brazil is doing, we already destroyed it.
What Indonesia and Brazil are doing is wrong; destroying forests?
If we replicate or emulate that it is also wrong, why don’t we make use of correcting a wrong by planting bamboo and other plants that absorb c02 faster and deliver more oxygen in deforested areas.And even in the urban jungles.But of course we have to stop illegal logging and do some big time reforestation.
Sorry to Phil if that is not being realistic. Even that so called get realist benign0 is also a dreamer/idealist(big time).Sorry if I have to bring him up.(best example kasi eh)
while we are on carbon.
even or largest carbon sink :the ocean, supposedly has micro organisms that feed on carbon,now because of heavy carbon emmissions the sea is becoming more acidic by the minute and the microorganisms could not survive the acid level of the ocean.
should we be proud not be one of the highest emitters?swerte lang tayo mahina ang manufacturing natin. but the fact remains we destroyed our forests, we pollute the water,the air,etc..
mining and delapidated ill maintained power plants will make us catchup with thise heavy emmiters.
Stop apologizing, Karl! These r excellent points. We need constructive thinkers, u know. As I said to Phil above, it’s easy to reject and be cynical: far mroe difficult (and admirable) to build. So u r definitely on the right track, at least as far as I’m concerned…
Sorr…. joke only.
Thanks .
To Karl and Lila,
Here are something I learnded from a friend who is an environmental engineer in Phil.
“I found out that there are five (5) carbon offset projects existing and operational in the Philippines. These are the Philippine Mini-Taxi Retrofits for fuel efficiency located at Puerto Princesa, Palawan and 2 other locations, Electric-Eagle Trikes for public transportation, Jatropha Trees for Biofuel/substitution, Sierra Madre Conservation and Gaia’s Forest Farm” . I am very pleased to hear that things are starting to happen in Phil. in this direction.
Thanks for the info Rosa!
The main blog is, all-in-all, of value, but it does have a handful of cute comments like this one — US abandonment of the Philippines during the Japanese occupation. I thought airplanes, artillery, mortar fire and other “stuff” were used. I thought the US wanted to stay, but dang artillery and mortar fire kept raining on their position. My understanding is that Manuel Luis Quezon and a very small number of US soldiers abandoned the Philippines, and then, the remaining US soldiers (and Philippine scouts) who remained were invited to march. The march was unpleasant to both Americans and Filipinos involved in the march, the stories go.
Now, other history books state that one of the worst events of World War II could have been avoided if the US armed forces truly continued to abandon the Philippines. By returning (as opposing to bypassing) the horrors of Dresden was exceeded during the battle to retake Manila. Stupid McArthur!!!! The US should have abandoned, the US should should have come back only after the Japanese Emperor surrendered. Or maybe the US should not have returned at all and left Pinas to the Hukbalahaps.
Most of our history books did not highllight the abandonment, renato constantino highlighted it, and then came more.
I remember commenting about that abandonment some time ago somewhere.But you are right UPN.
we should not forget those Americans who stayed.
The war with the japs spread to the whole pacific and there is still europe and the whole axis of evil.
That war also gave rise to what we know see as a problem. The private armies.
From Marcos to Dimaporo, or from north to south .They provided the fire power needed to fight the Japs.
Uh, UP n grad? “Cute” more accurately describes those whose only methodological tactic appears to be to attack (rather than to sincerely engage; for pointers, u might want to take a few tips from someone like Abe, who disagrees, but in substantive and empirical ways — the mark of a true intellectual). I’ve seen such spoilers in others frays: they jump in, throw in a bombshell and then run away. When their reader carefully responds to the points they raised, they don’t respond because they’ve already moved on to the next thing to attack. Kinda ADHD, if u ask me…
Of course we all know that there were Americans who stayed. But I was referring to the overarching picture. And we all know that Quezon was a collaborator: where exactly is the value-added in repeating common knowledge, my friend?
Now kindly show some gravitas of your own and: a.) show me something substantive u yourself have written; and b.) make an effort to respond to some of the points I made to u above (all of which u artfully ignored, I notice) before jumping on to a new topic. In case u’ve been too busy jumping around (as is your wont, apparently), I’ve copied them again for u below. Since your ID is pretty emphatic about the fact that u graduated from UP (u sure about that now, hon?), perhaps u might like to show us some of the intellectual rigor u picked up there? I used to teach in UP and had some wondeful students: only a handful were dilettantes… ;-)
“2.) The fact is, we ARE broke and are currently undergoing a fiscal crisis. Even if our leaders didn’t steal today, we would still have enormous budgetary issues in large part because of all the debts we have yet to pay, no thanks to Mr. Marcos. Where exactly do u propose we get the money…?
3.) The “white gods” are hardly homogeneous. There is a great deal (imperialism, neo-colonialism, the arms trade, sustenace of corrupt regimes, materialism, etc, etc) that we should reject, even as there is a great deal that we can learn from them. U will find when you read me that I don’t favor blanket assessments in general and prefer a little more precision.
4.) The UN operates on the notion that national sovereignty should be respected. So u will be hard put to find countries that will meddle in the internal warfares in any country. This has to do with international law itself. If Stalin, Saddam or Pol Pot, say, want to exterminate large numbers of their own people, the international community technically has no say if those people are within the boundaries of their own respective countries and happen to be from the same “racial” group. Now if one dominant group exterminates another group (Rwanda, Sudan, etc), or one country invades another, then the internatonal community can impose sanctions on that country or even attack it. If u notice, Saddam was tried not for what he did to the Iraqis (because the law, which I don’t agree with, implies that he can do whatever he wants to his own people since he was elected by them) but for what he did to the KURDS and the KUWAITIS. So, apart from moral condemnation, you’re not going to get more from foreign funders and the international community when it comes to internal issues like clan warfare.
5.) Donors choose their causes all the time: they regard that as their prerogative, which arguably it is. I mean, it’s their money, after all. The majority fund children (the sexiest and most saleable issue) and the environment, with women and development lagging much further behind.”
Good luck! ;-)
(1) The Kurds that Saddam gassed are citizens of Iraq; the mass murder that he unleashed in 1991 and 1999 were against Iraqi Shiites of southen Iraq. Saddam was tried — and found guilty, then hanged — for crimes against Iraqi citizens. [On the other hand, the justification used when USA and the coalition forces invaded Iraq was not Saddam terrorizing d the Iraqi citizens but because Saddam invaded Kuwait (Bush-elder).]
(2) Net-present-value of future cash flow is where to find the money for today’s projects. Money is found by obligating the fees and the tax money to be collected from Primer and/or Primer’s children. Now Ja_G and/or Phil_Manila are the better experts (e.g. they can cite various financial ratios that guide how much can actually be borrowed given other Pinas debt obligations and reliability of collections). And then, there is OFW income. There is development money in ‘dem OFW income if only Pinas government were to tax them.
(3) And I suppose one of your UP students would apologize in light of “over-arching picture”. I can’t because I wasn’t in your class nor could I infer what is included in the “over-arching picture” from the sentences in your blog comments.
===============
Anyways . . . . you are lucky to have the UP students that you had.
Now that’s better, see? There’s no disagreement here:
1.) Of course they were all Iraqi citizens. I was just saying that the whole trouble with international law is that it lets dictators do whatever they want to do to their own people: IL only starts jumping up and down if it’s ANOTHER ethnic/religious minority group or country altogether, which I personally disagree with. Saddam was a Sunni and the Shi’a were widely persecuted during his time (although the Shi’a population in Iraq is huge). Technically, that was also classified as religious persecution. Again, I am not in the business of defending Bush Sr or Jr, but the fact that they used Kuwait as a justification buttresses my original point. In my view, crimes against one’s own people (as in the case of Saddam and the Iraqis who were not Shi’a or Kurdish) r equally egregious. Unfortunately, that is where the law stands today…
2.) I would be interested in reading more from Primer, JAG and Phil on this. But, on the face of it, I would have no problem with that. Those r good points.
However, as someone who is fairly active with the Fil-Am community here, I will say that they r all pretty pissed off about how the government has treated them in general. Not sure how they would feel about being taxed to boot (they’re not being represented as it is; while Migrante as a party list is controversial, there is no doubt that they have a huge publicity network and they have made sure Fil-Ams hear that they’ve gotten the short end of the stick in Congress, no thanks to COMELEC).
What we were trying to do in UNDP was to see if OFWs would agree to allowing .08% of their remittances to be used for development purposes. We had a big conference in 2005 with UNDP, ADB and the DFA to discuss this. Unfortunately, the latter did not seem to want to push for it because the OFWs r mostly TNTs daw and therefore they did not want to legitimize them, which my UN bosses found to be pretty disappointing since it could hypothetically have helped the country a lot…
3.) You and I are BOTH lucky to be associated with UP. I have many dear friends among the faculty and students there, even after all these years. I have the highest respect for some of the artists, thinkers and revolutionaries the university has spawned.
I don’t expect an apology here. But I will caution u that there is such a thing as netiquette, after all. If you’re gonna go under someone’s blog, say their ideas r 10 years behind the times and “cute”, u shouldn’t be surprised if they put u in your place (who r u and what r your proposals, aber?). Someone with decent academic training would usually say: on the one hand, I agree with a, b, c; on the other hand, I disagree with x, y, z. I know a lot of UP intellectuals who would do that as a matter of course. So: if that’s how u begin an online relationship with someone you’ve never met or talked to at length (you’re not talking to your buddies here; you’re talking to me), then you’ll have to learn to roll with the punches and take it in stride if they observe in turn that there is a tendency towards dilettantism in all this jumping around (which happily you have tried to correct). So this is nothing personal, but just know that u will always get from people as good as u give.
Peace.
i actually agree. the word abandon is confusing.
in what sense did the US abandon RP in WW2? it was a war, they were losing, so they retreated. isnt that the standard interpretation?
Exciting post. I have been searching for some very good resources for solar panels and discovered your blog. Planning to bookmark this one!