Abolishing political dynasties

BACKBENCHER

Rod P. Kapunan

11/3-4/2012

An obscure taxpayer might just end up as our modern-day hero for it seems he alone dared to put to a litmus test Section 26, Article II of the Constitution which provides, to quote: "The State shall guarantee equal protection to opportunities to public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law."

Focal to the petition is the universal constitutional principle about the equal protection clause. The petition seeking a definitive prohibition on political dynasties, viz. put to a test whether we truly have an enforceable Constitution or one that is merely meant as a decoration for the world to believe we have. This question has cropped up for it seems those wise guys whom former President Corazon Aquino appointed to draft her new charter maliciously phrased a provision that would end up as a mere decoration, it being unenforceable allegedly for want of an enabling law. For sure, those wise guys who styled themselves as constitutionalists knew that by inserting that seemingly innocuous phrase, they could render the provision something of a dead duck.

Since many of the constitutional commissioners were themselves politicians wanting to recoup their lost glory in the post-Marcos era, they premeditatedly inserted a provision that made us the only country in the world that cannot enforce our own Constitution. Stated otherwise, Section 26, Article II created a new precedent, which is to make the Constitution subservient to the law, and not the law being subservient to the Constitution. So, if those politicians decide not to enact a law defining a political dynasty, which in fact they did, then we have in effect drafted an inoperative Constitution.

Of course, petitioner Louis Biraogo remains undaunted. The possible dismissal of his petition may appear logical; that it cannot be implemented without an implementing law. But did it come to the senses of those drafters that constitutions, upon ratification by the people, are automatically made mandatory? As my good friend, a lawyer, explained, there is no such thing as an unconstitutional provision of the Constitution. He said that only laws can be declared unconstitutional if contrary to the provision or to the spirit of the charter. But never can the Constitution or any of its provisions be declared unconstitutional.

More than that, to dismiss the petition is to uphold the continuing injustice to the Filipino people because political dynasties have made a sham of our electoral system of government. It is also high time to remind the surviving framers of that prosaic provision and the apologists who style themselves as constitutionalists that Section 26, Article II categorically prohibits political dynasties, it being violative of the equal protection clause as it denies our people the equal opportunities to serve the public. That portion of the sentence which states "as may be defined by law" is redundant, not to say useless. Section 26, Article II can operate on its own without out waiting for politicians in Congress to legislate a law implementing it.

As said, the Constitution needs no implementing law. Yes, some laws require implementing rules and regulations. Moreover, they apply only to agencies entrusted to enforce that law, and it should be consistent with what the law provides, while the law itself must be in accordance with or at least provided for in the Constitution. As my friend lawyer added, there is no statutory construction where the Constitution must be in accordance with the law or that it cannot be made to operate until and after a law has been legislated. But then who is that loony politician who would file a bill that would run counter to his interest?

Even if Section 26, Article II did not state the key phrase called "equal protection clause," nonetheless, its enforcement is peremptory much that it has been used as the most effective legal instrument by all civilized states to secure the equal protection of all the members of society, not only on the opportunity to serve the public, but foremost in the enforcement of basic justice. Without it, the whole thing we have been trumpeting as milestone in our civilization would be nothing more than fiction. It is not easy for the people to decide, as former President Joseph Estrada might think, because politicians like him already enjoy that undue advantage.

To be precise, the "equal protection clause" partakes of a positive command, which is to make sure that it applies to all, while the word "prohibit" is negative command, which means we are forbidden to indulge in that practice. Invariably, the application of the equal protection clause justifies the purpose of the prohibition, it being pernicious to our democratic system of government.

Thus, taken together, Section 26, Article II, is enforceable and the phrase "as may be defined by law" is a surplusage that serves no logical purpose. It is for this why our justices should not allow themselves to become the laughingstock of the world. For them to uphold that silly provision would make us appear as the only country on this planet that have a constitution we cannot enforce. Our justices should take a pro-active stand by giving life to that provision by banning candidates who are related by first degree to the outgoing incumbent public official from running. Our Civil Code has many provisions we can use by analogy to prohibit politicians from institutionalizing their political dominions.

For that matter, we need no specific provision defining what a political dynasty is as if to highlight our own stupidity, notwithstanding that its continuance makes a sham out of and insults our republican form of government. Such a landmark decision Court cannot be said as another of those unwarranted judicial legislation, but is meant to enforce what the Constitution so provides, more so in the wake that our politicians have been dilly-dallying in legislating that law.

rpkapunan@gmail.com

The government’s war against radicals (conclusion)

EVERYMAN

Prof. David Michael San Juan

De La Salle University-Manila

11/2/2012

(Concluded from Friday)

The K to 12 scheme: A poison pill 
Unfortunately for netizens and citizens alike, the Philippine government won't be contented with winning just the online battle against radicals. It is a fact that schools, especially universities, are known breeding ground for all sorts of ideas. Indeed, universities are known bastions of academic freedom and unrestrained research. Hence, universities are venues where the seeds of good radical ideas are planted in the minds and hearts of young citizens who learn the value of critical thinking and reasoning. These skills are best honed or developed at the university level where the country's strong old General Education Curriculum provides students with a comprehensive and holistic education that emphasizes the liberal arts/humanities. It is thus no wonder that college students are among the most politicized and the most engaged netizens and citizens who not only contribute to the general endeavor of Facebooking or Twittering "the revolution's" development, but also participate in actual assemblies, discussions, rallies etc. that challenge the evil forces of the status quo.

College students are known to join protest actions against corruption, militarism, humungous debt payments, lack of ample education budget etc., as they are much capable of digesting current national events and their relationships to their day-to-day struggles as student-citizens, having been challenged by their professors to think creatively and critically at all times. Hence, as per the Philippine government's malevolent agenda, it is necessary to dilute if not totally obliterate the liberal arts/humanities component of the GEC at the university level. It is in this context that the Philippine government has started implementing the World Bank-supported Kindergarten to 12 years of Basic Education (K to 12) scheme.

Under the Philippine K to 12 scheme, the GEC at the university level is downsized, with most of the subjects transferred to the senior high school/junior college level (the additional two years after the four years of junior high school or plainly, "high school" in the old curriculum). Indeed, based on the most recent draft of the curriculum for the new college GEC and core subjects of the senior high school/junior college level under K to 12, the new liberal arts/humanities components will generally be diluted as compared with that of the components under the old GEC.

The politics of language
For example, as per the K to 12 Program, there will be no Filipino subject left in the new Revised General Education Curriculum for the university level, as stated in the August 29, 2012 presentation of DepEd Assistant Secretary Tonisito M. C. Umali, Esq. available at http://ceap.org.ph/upload/download/20129/1881921971_1.pdf

Here's what the pertinent slide states:

Proponents of the K to 12 claim that Filipino subjects would be transferred to the senior high school/junior college level under the K to 12 scheme. Unfortunately, only one Filipino subject (Retorika) will be included in the senior high school/junior college curriculum as stated in the document "K TO 12 TOOLKIT: Reference Guide for Teacher Educators, School Administrators, and Teachers (2012)" released by the SEAMEO-INNOTECH (with the DepEd's imprimatur considering that DepEd Secretary Br. Armin Luistro, FSC gave an introductory message in the document). As per this document, only FILIPINO: RETORIKA will be REQUIRED! Meanwhile, Filipino for Specific Purposes is OPTIONAL! The said document is available at http://www.gov.ph/downloads/2012/201209-K-to-12-Toolkit.pdf Here's the pertinent part:

It is necessary to emphasize that the obliteration of some Filipino subjects perfectly fits the Philippine government's plan on its war against radicals, considering that the Filipino language is the dominant language of dissent and expression among the common folk. Hence, obliterating Filipino subjects would somehow weaken the possibility of the radical elite, middle class and lower classes perfecting their facility of a common language where they can freely express themselves and collectively speak against the status quo and in favor of sweeping socio-economic reforms. The obliteration of Filipino subjects weakens the possibility of a strong united front against the unjust status quo.

Killing political science softly
Notice too that the K to 12 scheme lacks any provision for a Political Science subject. In the old GEC, studying Philippine Government and Constitution is a requirement (indeed, it is a constitutional requirement). It must be emphasized that this old subject, now obliterated under the K to 12 scheme, is an important tool in the radicalization of citizens. Goodness, it's the only subject where participation in rallies/public assemblies might be directly required. Without such a subject, how could students effectively learn the value of people empowerment and participation in governance, two things which are necessary for any radical social movement to succeed in realizing its goals to transform society for the better?

Technicalization as dehumanization
Finally, the evident "technicalization" and "dehumanization" of the core curriculum for the senior high school/junior college level are direct machinations to prevent the growth of radical ideas among students. By reducing senior high school/junior college to the mere learning of "technical skills" for immediate employment, the K to 12 scheme aims to "…create a new generation of children who will not have the ability to think or create or listen…," as Mr. Glenn Holland, a music teacher in the movie "Mr. Holland's Opus" (1995) uttered in warning against the death of General Education/Liberal Arts subjects in the United States of America. Imagine a world where "…kids aren't going to have anything to read or write about…" as per Mr. Holland's prophecy. Radicals can't help but remember Mr. Chipping's chilling remark on contemporary education in the film "Goodbye Mr. Chips" (1939): "I know the world's changing. I see old traditions dying one by one. Grace, dignity, feeling for the past. All that matters today is a fat banking account. You're trying to run the school like a factory for turning out moneymaking snobs."

Finally, the K to 12 scheme is thus a dangerous attack against everything that radicals cherish. As Joseph Epstein said in "Who Killed the Liberal Arts? And why we should care": "The death of liberal arts education would constitute a serious subtraction. Without it, we shall no longer have a segment of the population that has a proper standard with which to judge true intellectual achievement. Without it, no one can have a genuine notion of what constitutes an educated man or woman, or why one work of art is superior to another, or what in life is serious and what is trivial. The loss of liberal arts education can only result in replacing authoritative judgment with rivaling expert opinions, the vaunting of the second- and third-rate in politics and art, the supremacy of the faddish and the fashionable in all of life. Without that glimpse of the best that liberal arts education conveys, a nation might wake up living in the worst, and never notice." With the Cybercrime Act of 2012 and the K to 12 scheme at hand, we're treading on the road to perdition. It's good that we still notice it. Let's keep on raging against the dying of the light!

Mr. David Michael San Juan is an instructor of the Filipino Department, De La Salle University-Manila

The government’s war against radicals (Part 1)

EVERYMAN

Prof. David Michael San Juan

De La Salle University-Manila

11/2/2012

This may sound idiotic to Europeans and most Asians, but in the Philippines, it is really necessary to define the term "radical" in any article, lest you are labelled an "enemy of the state," even a "terrorist," right away. Hence, this article clearly states that "radical" is the exact opposite of "conservative." If a "conservative" does everything to preserve the unjust status quo, the "radical" does everything to change or transform the status quo for the better. For example, a conservative thinks it is ok for capitalist firms in the Philippines to pay only a 30-percent corporate tax rate and still receive lots of tax exemptions through bogus donations to equally bogus charitable institutions, not to mention tax holidays (tax-free status for a number of years) while typical university instructors/lecturers and professors pay AT LEAST a 30-percent income tax rate WITHOUT ANY SIGNIFICANT TAX EXEMPTIONS. Meanwhile, a radical thinks it is necessary to increase the tax rates for the richest corporations and individuals —just like what France recently did by imposing a 75-percent tax rate on euro millionaires—so that the government could have more money for public/social services such as education, health care, housing, and transportation.

Simply put, at least in the Philippine context, radicals are good people while conservatives are mostly evil, or at the very least, stupid people (if you still require an explanation, you are definitely a conservative). One wonders now why the Philippine government has waged a war against radicals, and how it is implementing a variety of seemingly diverse and unrelated schemes to win this big war.

The Philippine government hates radicals so much because they are a threat to the unjust status quo. As conservatives have dominated the Philippine government since the 1900s (when the Americans first imposed "elections" in the country), it is obvious that all Philippine administrations are basically conservative/anti-radical.

The perks of being petibourgeois
With the advent of social media (Facebook, Twitter etc.), radical segments of the middle class and some of the lower classes who have access to such, are able to effectively mouth radical propaganda to an increasing number of citizens, beyond the reach (and/or influence) of traditional radical propaganda such as written statements and public assemblies/rallies. Hence, it is now clear that social media has become another weapon in the arsenal of radicals who passionately would want to transform the status quo. Simply put, radicals are now succeeding in radicalizing a significant number of previously non-radical and even totally conservative elements of the middle class and segments of the lower classes that have access to the internet.

The Philippine government is afraid that an era where privately-owned conservative media (newspapers, radios and televisions) and the government's own media outfits dominate the scene and exert influence on the people is fast ending. Within the context of Antonio Gramsci's concept of hegemony, the Philippine government has now realized that Facebook, Twitter and other petibourgeois perks are de-facto radical counterhegemonic weapons against the unjust and now crumbling (though not yet totally defenseless) status quo —weapons that enlighten the masses and the petibourgeoisie (middle class) and even some (younger) segments of the elite previously blind to social realities and the struggles for their transformation, due to the previously unbeatable influence of the mostly conservative traditional media on their (un)consciousness. In other words, the Philippine government is convinced that the imminent revolution to obliterate the status quo (a revolution which, they officially declare as dying or fading) might be "Facebooked or Twittered," to paraphrase the title of an Irish documentary on Hugo Chavez' socialist Bolivarian revolution ("The Revolution Will Not Be Televised").

Indeed, with the current internet penetration in the Philippines pegged at 30 percent (three out of 10 Filipinos have regular access to Internet), the Philippine government's fear of the revolution being Facebooked or Twittered is not entirely baseless. The popularity of non-aligned Facebook pages such as "T*ng-Ina This," "Pixel Offensive" and "Showbiz Government" that expose the current regime's anti-people and anti-democratic character is a proof that Facebook and other social media sites have become new fronts in the battle for and against ideas and perspectives. The successful entry and propaganda work of traditional radical organizations in Facebook and other social media sites further bolster the power of social media for genuine social liberation. Despite differences in style, tactics and over-all objectives, these groups that have mastered the use of Facebook and other sites for radical propaganda, are in fact strengthening social media as counterhegemonic weapons.

The Cybercrime Act as a tool
With the aforementioned, it is not surprising that the second Aquino administration—despite fashioning itself as a liberal-democratic regime —has doggedly fought for the passage of the anti-democratic Cybercrime Act of 2012. The said law authorizes the Philippine Department of Justice to shut down Web sites found to have libellous remarks, even without any court order. At the micro level, it also criminalizes the liking and/or sharing of libellous remarks in social media. Hence, all radical propaganda would simply be labelled as libellous and voila, the Philippine government could instantly obliterate any chance of the revolution being Facebooked or Twittered. Indeed, the Cybercrime Act of 2012 would psychologically compel some segments of social media users to censor themselves by refraining from liking and/or sharing counterhegemonic material which the government might consider as libellous. Instantly, the broad online counterhegemonic coalition is at least psychologically undermined. Hence, this law is a potent government weapon in its war against radicals.

Continued tomorrow

Mr. David Michael San Juan is an instructor of the Filipino Department, De La Salle University-Manila

RP: Moody's 'walking debt'?

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

11/5/2012

Many Third World countries were ensnared in the global debt trap in the 70's, after the US decoupled its dollar from gold, printed dollars its economy could not support and recouped by trapping nations into endless borrowing of its fiat currency. Other grew wiser: Argentina, Brazil and Russia re-negotiated and/or simply paid off their debts between 2005 and 2006. They have since become major global economic players after being freed from debt. Ecuador in 2007 repudiated unjust foreign debts forcing up to 80 percent write downs then paid off most of it, now economists are advising the Greece to learn from Ecuador. Debt free countries walk free, while debt laden countries like the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain) are zombies of the international bankers — like the Philippines now being set up for a new round of debt indenture and continue poster boy for the "walking debt."

We have seen a flurry of flattering international and domestic financial news about how well the Philippines under Aquino III is doing (despite a third-rate two year average growth of 4.3 percent to this date from seven percent in 2010) capped off by last week's much ballyhooed Moody's rating agency upgrade of the Philippines "just a notch below investment grade." This is the bait. The upgrade prompted Budget Secretary Butch Abad to quip, "we in the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) are equally inspired to take the necessary measures to ensure faster and more efficient spending across the bureaucracy." Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Gov. Amando Tetangco Jr. in a statement said, "We are delighted with Moody's recognition… This year, BSP has cut policy rates by a total of 100 basis points (one percent) to help the economy …to support economic growth." It all sounds well until we understand the present global financial background.

Actually, Standard and Poor, Fitch have all upgraded the Philippines, but all three ratings agencies have been in the line of fire since 2008 when they rated AAA Lehman Brothers and AIG just before the two collapsed. All have since been accused of conflicts of interest in the ratings game as they are paid by the global bankers for this service. While BSP's Tetangco proudly touts his 100 basis points rates cut in the Philippines it must be remembered that interest rates for the banks in the US under the QE3 (Quantitative Easing III, unlimited printing of dollars for the banks) is practically zero, and "hot money" find its way into the Philippine financial system, stock and money markets, to siphon real value for its dollars without cost.

The PPP (public-private partnership) is repeatedly linked to the credit-upgrade, as international banking (read, mafia) are all waiting to broker the cheap money for the PPP. For example, "HSBC Holdings Plc. says it has six clients ready to bid for some of the $16 billion of projects to build hospitals, roads and airports … while Japanese company Sumitomo Corp. (shown to overprice its costs) may offer to upgrade and maintain two railways in Manila." The PPP has suffered delays, Aquino III explain that it is "taking some time because we want to ensure that these projects provide a reasonable return to investors." What they apparently are waiting for, government and PPP companies, are the near zero-interest rate funds to be channeled, with margins made, through the international banks.

The Moody's ratings upgrade of the Philippines and the mainstream media's uncritical and unquestioning paeans to, is setting up the Filipino people for more debt that it needs like a hole in the head. Easily forgotten in the noisy celebrations of the "credit upgrade" is the fact that the Philippines does not need to borrow anymore from the transnational loan sharks or "banksters" (gangster-bankers, as financial analyst Max Keiser calls them) like Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Citi, HSBC, et al. The government and the Filipino financial system buttressed by OFW earnings, with $83-billion gross international reserves against $63-billion foreign debt and P 1.7-trillion in the Special Deposit Account with the BSP can pay off the entire foreign debt with more to spare. Didn't we lend to Greece at three percent or one percent interest loss over our own debts?

Moody's upgrade encourages more the debt, a component of the US' global financial warfare for its own recovery targeting the gullible. Antonio, Shakespeare's Christian who lends without interest, tells money-lender Shylock "If thou wilt lend this money, lend it not as to thy friends — for when did friendship take a breed for barren metal of his friend? — But lend it rather to thine enemy, Who if he break thou mayst with better face exact the penalty. (1.3.8)" The compounded interest and principal Filipinos paid international bankers (Paris Club) is three times over the debt incurred since President Diosdado Macapagal accepted IMF's $ 300-million "stabilization fund" in 1962 after "decontrol." 2013 is time to reject new debt and pay off all old debts: Retake control of our nation's finances and walk, free, proud and prosperous.

(GNN Channel 8, HTL show. Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., 11:15 p.m. Sunday 8 a.m., simulcast www.gnntv-asia.com: tune to 1098AM radio Tuesday to Friday 5 to 6 p.m. and www.kitv.ph; http://newkatipunan.blogspot.com)