DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
12/24/2010
"Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
-John F. Kennedy
Ten years ago the country and the world were full of hope. It was a transition not only from an old decade to another, not only from an old century to a new one but also from one old millennium to another. Hope abounded. The Cold War had ended and the nuclear MAD-ness (mutual assured destruction) was believed to be a thing of the past. The Dot.com boom reached dizzying heights and its wealth effect would touch every member of the global economy for the better. Political change was in the air; Bush Jr. became president in the US under the most questionable circumstances while in the Philippines Georgetown economics student Gloria Arroyo became president through a power grab, but the euphoria of change carried the day. Even the dreaded doomsday Y2K bug proved a dud, thereafter nothing seemed to be in the way of the new century and new millennium to spoil the good times ahead.
Little did the people of the World and of the Philippines realize that the forces that made a disaster of the last century were already at work to turn the new decade the start of another century of wars, exploitation and oppression. In the US, even before the old century ended, plans for global resurgence of US global pre-eminence was drawn up in the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) in 1997. It included a wish for "a new Pearl Harbor" is which many believe envisioned the 9/11 WTC "inside job" terror strike leading to the Iraq and Afghan wars. In the Philippines, a conspiracy to depose the elected president and install the vice-president already worked out in 1998 when the coup should happen (that is, less than half the official presidential term) to allow the installed vice-president to legally run for a new term and gain a full decade to solidify their gains.
The omens were clear: Bush Jr.'s electoral coup d'etat aided by the Florida voting machine fraud and the Republican dominated US Supreme Court thwarting the popular will of the American people, and in the Philippines, the Edsa Dos coup d'etat aided by the Davide Supreme Court thwarting the Filipino's popular will.
What followed in both countries was a record of misuse and massive abuse of political power triggering endless wars by the US president and endless larceny by the Philippine president, all of which benefitted the global and local corporatocratic aristocracy, institutionalizing their systematic looting and monopoly of political power and economic plunder. As that decade ended they prepared for the next with new elections that installed their own again; no change in American, no change in the world, no change in the Philippines.
Elections generally achieve only an illusion or change, little real change happens when structural foundations stay the same. The real power behind America today is still the financial class, despite its mess that collapsed the US economy and caused massive American jobs losses; Obama and the US Congress bails out the financial class and not the people. The same in the Philippines: New names on old, old programs, like old roads given new street names: the Build-Operate-Transfer law is still the basis for the "new" Public-Private Partnership projects, the Conditional Cash Transfer replaces the old Millennium Fund dole-outs same same. Some cosmetic changes have more psychological impact than others, such as the release of political prisoners that does not change the political equation but releases revolutionary fervor of formerly imprisoned reform leaders.
However, real change still can come under these difficult situations, such as from an unexpected turn of mind of those installed by elections, compelling drastic moves from the powers behind the throne, such as assassination, and frequently in US history. In the Philippines, a coup d'etat is normally sufficient, or its threat is usually enough to keep the installed leader on "good" behavior. The forces for real change, leaders that identify themselves with the welfare of the people, can also rise within the system and work stealthily both within and outside in springing surprises on the forces of the neo-aristocracy or corporatocracy. There will always be a sufficient number of leaders and forces for real change because oppression and exploitation are real. Suffering of all oppressed classes is real, and heightening of consciousness continues unabated especially in the alternative media like the Internet.
A holiday get together highlighted four generations of genuine and progressive change-leaders with ideologies ranging from communist/socialist, Marcos military, Yellow officers, young officers, church laity and Edsa Tres stalwarts, I was told by one reformist politician that the army for change is now three times larger than it was when it shook the Marcos and Aquino regimes; I added that the people's bitter experiences (as in the electric power plunder issue) and failed economic promises (increasing unemployment, for example) of the new US and Philippine establishment leadership also prepare the population to an insurrection against the oppressive order (as we see in Europe and smashing of Prince Charles' car window). One caveat was expressed, "When we strike against the oligarchy, it must be finished completely in one blow." I can see it all happening, beginning 2011.
(Tune in to Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; watch Politics Today with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., replay 11 p.m., Global News Network, Destiny Cable Channel 8; visit our blogs, http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com; P.S.: "10 Minutes Lights Out vs Power Plunderers," 7 to 7:10 p.m., Monday nights)
Friday, December 24, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Vizconde Massacre Case: En banc 7-vote acquittal is unconstitutional
Alan F. Paguia
Former Professor of Law
Ateneo Law School
University of Batangas
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
alanpaguia@yahoo.com
December 16, 2010
Is the seven-vote acquittal rendered by the Supreme Court en banc in the consolidated cases of Lejano v. People and People v. Webb - constitutional?
It is respectfully submitted the proper answer is NO.
The dispositive portion of the Decision, dated December 14, 2010, reads:
“WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Decision dated December 15, 2005 and Resolution dated January 26, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 00336 and ACQUITS accused-appellants Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano, Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada and Gerardo Biong of the crimes of which they were charged for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless they are confined for another lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to report the action he has taken to this Court within five days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.”
1. The 15 Justices voted as follows:
a. Seven (7) for acquittal;
b. Four (4) dissenting; and
c. Four (4) took no part.
2. On the basis of the seven votes, all the accused were immediately released from prison.
3. The material provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution appear to be as follows:
“The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.” (Sec. 1, Art. II)
“The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in divisions of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.” (Par. 1, Sec. 4, ART. VIII)
“All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.” (Par. 2, ibid.)
“Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.” (Par. 3, ibid.)
“The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties. Any Member who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from a decision or resolution must state the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be observed by all lower collegiate courts.” (Sec. 13, ibid.)
4. There are two ways by which the SC can decide a case:
(a) En banc, referring to the total of 15 justices; or
(b) In divisions of 3, 5, or 7 justices.
5. In EN BANC proceedings, the case “shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon”.
6. In DIVISION proceedings, the case “shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon”.
a. In a division of 3 Justices, a decision must have 3 concurring votes in order to be valid. This absolute minimum is by express provision of the Constitution. It can be readily observed that the required number of votes in relation to the total number of justices in the division is CONSISTENT with the cardinal principle of DEMOCRACY or the RULE OF MAJORITY.
b. In a division of 5 Justices, a decision must also have 3 concurring votes in order to be valid. This absolute minimum is by express provision of the Constitution. It can be readily observed that the required number of votes in relation to the total number of justices in the division is CONSISTENT with the cardinal principle of DEMOCRACY or the RULE OF MAJORITY.
c. In a division of 7 Justices, 4 would constitute a QUORUM. By mechanical application of the rule, 3 out of the 4 could render a decision. This is the problem. Why? Because 3 obviously do not constitute a majority of the total number of justices in the division.
7. Therefore, the rule cannot be mechanically applied. The rule is not clear. It is ambiguous. In divisions of 3 or 5 justices, the result of the application of the rule is consistent with the rule of majority; but, in a division of 7 justices, such application results in ABSURDITY. Instead of upholding the rule of majority, the result is the RULE OF MINORITY or violation of the cardinal principle of DEMOCRACY.
8. The same ABSURDITY arises from the application of the rule in en banc proceedings where 7 justices could rule over the 15 justices of the Court. Hence, the question is whether (a) 7 out of 15, or (b) 8 out of 15 – is the CORRECT MAJORITY.
9. Where the rule is not clear, it must be construed or clarified before it can be applied. There is no such construction or clarification in the case at bar.
10. Is the rule requiring the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon – consistent with the RULE OF MAJORITY?
The answer must be qualified.
(a) First, in divisions of 3 or 5 justices, the answer is YES.
(b) Second, in a division of 7 justices, the answer is NO.
(c) Third, in en banc proceedings, the answer is NO.
In other words, the proper application of the rule is qualified. Insofar as the second and third cases are concerned, the application must be consistent with the RULE OF MAJORITY. Ergo, in the second case, the required number of votes for a valid decision should be 4, while in the third case, the required number of votes should be 8.
11. QUORUM means MAJORITY. Since the mechanical application of the rule requires the majority of the quorum, it follows that the requirement is, in reality, a majority of the majority – which actually refers to the MINORITY. Hence, there would appear two kinds of MAJORITY: the TRUE MAJORITY which is democratic, and the FALSE MAJORITY which is undemocratic.
12. Is the 7-vote acquittal valid? NO. According to the Supreme Court, where the required number of votes is not obtained, THERE IS NO DECISION (Fortich v. Corona, 312 SCRA 751, at 758).
13. Is the order of release questionable? YES. It appears undemocratic. It is based on the RULE OF MINORITY, not the RULE OF MAJORITY.
14. Does the inconclusive acquittal render the case undecided? NO. By parity of reasoning with the doctrine laid down in Fortich v. Corona, ibid., there is still the Court of Appeals decision affirming the conviction of the accused which must stand in view of the failure of the Supreme Court en banc to muster the necessary vote for its reversal. Thus, the appeal is lost. The appealed decision is not reversed and must therefore be deemed AFFIRMED.
15. Is the lost appeal final? NO. All the accused have 15 days from receipt of the decision within which to file a motion for reconsideration. If the motion is granted and at least one dissenting justice changes his mind and votes for acquittal in addition to the 7-vote acquittal, then the appealed conviction would be REVERSED with finality. Otherwise, the conviction stands.
Former Professor of Law
Ateneo Law School
University of Batangas
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
alanpaguia@yahoo.com
December 16, 2010
Is the seven-vote acquittal rendered by the Supreme Court en banc in the consolidated cases of Lejano v. People and People v. Webb - constitutional?
It is respectfully submitted the proper answer is NO.
The dispositive portion of the Decision, dated December 14, 2010, reads:
“WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Decision dated December 15, 2005 and Resolution dated January 26, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 00336 and ACQUITS accused-appellants Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano, Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada and Gerardo Biong of the crimes of which they were charged for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless they are confined for another lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to report the action he has taken to this Court within five days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.”
1. The 15 Justices voted as follows:
a. Seven (7) for acquittal;
b. Four (4) dissenting; and
c. Four (4) took no part.
2. On the basis of the seven votes, all the accused were immediately released from prison.
3. The material provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution appear to be as follows:
“The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.” (Sec. 1, Art. II)
“The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in divisions of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.” (Par. 1, Sec. 4, ART. VIII)
“All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.” (Par. 2, ibid.)
“Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.” (Par. 3, ibid.)
“The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties. Any Member who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from a decision or resolution must state the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be observed by all lower collegiate courts.” (Sec. 13, ibid.)
4. There are two ways by which the SC can decide a case:
(a) En banc, referring to the total of 15 justices; or
(b) In divisions of 3, 5, or 7 justices.
5. In EN BANC proceedings, the case “shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon”.
6. In DIVISION proceedings, the case “shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon”.
a. In a division of 3 Justices, a decision must have 3 concurring votes in order to be valid. This absolute minimum is by express provision of the Constitution. It can be readily observed that the required number of votes in relation to the total number of justices in the division is CONSISTENT with the cardinal principle of DEMOCRACY or the RULE OF MAJORITY.
b. In a division of 5 Justices, a decision must also have 3 concurring votes in order to be valid. This absolute minimum is by express provision of the Constitution. It can be readily observed that the required number of votes in relation to the total number of justices in the division is CONSISTENT with the cardinal principle of DEMOCRACY or the RULE OF MAJORITY.
c. In a division of 7 Justices, 4 would constitute a QUORUM. By mechanical application of the rule, 3 out of the 4 could render a decision. This is the problem. Why? Because 3 obviously do not constitute a majority of the total number of justices in the division.
7. Therefore, the rule cannot be mechanically applied. The rule is not clear. It is ambiguous. In divisions of 3 or 5 justices, the result of the application of the rule is consistent with the rule of majority; but, in a division of 7 justices, such application results in ABSURDITY. Instead of upholding the rule of majority, the result is the RULE OF MINORITY or violation of the cardinal principle of DEMOCRACY.
8. The same ABSURDITY arises from the application of the rule in en banc proceedings where 7 justices could rule over the 15 justices of the Court. Hence, the question is whether (a) 7 out of 15, or (b) 8 out of 15 – is the CORRECT MAJORITY.
9. Where the rule is not clear, it must be construed or clarified before it can be applied. There is no such construction or clarification in the case at bar.
10. Is the rule requiring the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon – consistent with the RULE OF MAJORITY?
The answer must be qualified.
(a) First, in divisions of 3 or 5 justices, the answer is YES.
(b) Second, in a division of 7 justices, the answer is NO.
(c) Third, in en banc proceedings, the answer is NO.
In other words, the proper application of the rule is qualified. Insofar as the second and third cases are concerned, the application must be consistent with the RULE OF MAJORITY. Ergo, in the second case, the required number of votes for a valid decision should be 4, while in the third case, the required number of votes should be 8.
11. QUORUM means MAJORITY. Since the mechanical application of the rule requires the majority of the quorum, it follows that the requirement is, in reality, a majority of the majority – which actually refers to the MINORITY. Hence, there would appear two kinds of MAJORITY: the TRUE MAJORITY which is democratic, and the FALSE MAJORITY which is undemocratic.
12. Is the 7-vote acquittal valid? NO. According to the Supreme Court, where the required number of votes is not obtained, THERE IS NO DECISION (Fortich v. Corona, 312 SCRA 751, at 758).
13. Is the order of release questionable? YES. It appears undemocratic. It is based on the RULE OF MINORITY, not the RULE OF MAJORITY.
14. Does the inconclusive acquittal render the case undecided? NO. By parity of reasoning with the doctrine laid down in Fortich v. Corona, ibid., there is still the Court of Appeals decision affirming the conviction of the accused which must stand in view of the failure of the Supreme Court en banc to muster the necessary vote for its reversal. Thus, the appeal is lost. The appealed decision is not reversed and must therefore be deemed AFFIRMED.
15. Is the lost appeal final? NO. All the accused have 15 days from receipt of the decision within which to file a motion for reconsideration. If the motion is granted and at least one dissenting justice changes his mind and votes for acquittal in addition to the 7-vote acquittal, then the appealed conviction would be REVERSED with finality. Otherwise, the conviction stands.
Monday, December 20, 2010
The colonial anti-boycott struggle
DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
12/20/2010
"Coalition of the weak” and “lovely collection of rogues and cowards” are some of the pejoratives used for the countries that rejected this year’s Nobel Peace Prize award ceremony in Oslo, Norway. Weak, rogues, and cowards… huh? Seriously?
Among the 18 or so countries that joined the boycott, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba and Russia are countries that have stood up to the foremost imperialist in modern times. The United States of America, for everyone’s information, maintains 800 military bases in 130 countries and continues to trigger wars in smaller countries on all continents of the globe (except Australia).
Cuba, meanwhile, has withstood US economic blockade since 1960; Vietnam defeated the US in 1975; Venezuela has defied Uncle Sam to the benefit of Venezuelans and nationalized the oil industry which the US once controlled; while Russia has gone tit-for-tat with the US in arms control, missile defense, South Ossetian independence, and a lot more since Putin restored Russian sovereignty.
It would be more correct to describe the detractors of the Peace Prize boycott as a gaggle of weak minds for wittingly or unwittingly missing such obvious facts.
This gaggle among the local crop of naysayers should not surprise anyone anymore. The Philippine intelligentsia is still a colonial vestige that survives and thrives on the handouts of the imperial power. From the nurturing of their journalistic careers (with grants, scholarships, and visas), to the multi-national advertising money poured in for their media organizations, to funding for “human rights journalism” and recruitment to US academe, not to mention prestigious awards and prizes, this intelligentsia merely sucks from the great imperialist’s bosom.
Francisco Tatad, for instance, tells a story of this writer he saw decades ago in Washington DC. As he saw the latter tugging his luggage and making his way to State Department offices at the Watergate complex, the writer (now one of the most vitriolic in the Philippine Star on the Peace Prize issue) said, “Pera-pera lang ito,” revealing his role as a US hack.
The real surprise is that among the countries that boycotted the Nobel Peace Prize, Afghanistan and Colombia are both under US control. Were the leaders of these countries instructed to join or was it their way of nudging their American masters for more “aid” as it seems to be their habit?
The boycott from Ukraine is no longer surprising as it is under the new pro-Russia president Victor Yanukovych. Sudan, another country fighting off Western attempts to split it into two — the North whose President Bashir is persecuted by the International Criminal Court for “genocide,” a charge no African country believes, and the oil-rich South that has pro-US rebel forces — also joined the boycott. Iran, as we know, has defied the West’s nuclear apartheid for quite some time, so its boycott came as no surprise.
Other boycotting countries include Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Serbia (which has real issues against the West, such as the separation of Kosovo, later placed under the leadership of a Mafioso and organ smuggler), Pakistan (which has given the West the best runaround on its nuclear arsenal), Egypt , Morocco… and then the Philippines.
As I have said before, even if the Philippine boycott was for mistaken reasons, it was the “right” mistake, which may be a first step in wriggling a toe away from the US straight jacket. Hopefully it won’t go the direction of Gloria Arroyo who got one toe out in the Iraq pull-out but soon learned that the US will still give her free rein if only for corruption, subservience, and personal convenience — but never for political independence.
About the Nobel Peace Prize’s latest Trojan horse, Liu Xiaobo, few know that he rooted not only for the US attack on Iraq, but also praised the US-Nato-led Afghan War and campaigns for China to be fully westernized. For local intelligentsia such as the PEN writers who condemned China, westernization and colonial mind slavery are a ticket to more visas and Western literary awards or grants.
How can anyone with a right mind award a Peace Prize to a war monger, and worse, to one that seeks to erase Asian historical and cultural legacy? The mainstream of Philippine opposition to the Peace Prize boycott is conveniently weak, if not absent-minded. It likes to shoot from the hip while knowing very little about the Nobel laureate and hardly considers the recent turn for pro-war figures of the Peace Prize committee chairman, Thorbjoern Jagland, a Nato war hawk and concurrent chairman of the hawkish Council of Europe.
The Philippine anti-boycott voices reflect the prevailing colonial mentality of local intelligentsia. It explains why the Philippines is unable to break free from colonial exploitation and oppression, making the nation exceedingly poorer.
If the nation’s intelligentsia today were only half as proud and independent as those of Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, Iran, or China, our nation would long have stayed at the forefront of Asian intellectual leadership as the revolutionary intellectual Rizal and company showed. As things stand, a Philippines that exists only under the shadow of the US will never grow intellectually, cultural, politically, and economically.
(Tune in to Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; watch Politics Today with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on Global News Network, Destiny Cable channel 8; visit our blogs, http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com; P.S.-“10 minutes lights out vs power plunderers,” 7 to 7:10 p.m., Monday nights)
Herman Tiu Laurel
12/20/2010
"Coalition of the weak” and “lovely collection of rogues and cowards” are some of the pejoratives used for the countries that rejected this year’s Nobel Peace Prize award ceremony in Oslo, Norway. Weak, rogues, and cowards… huh? Seriously?
Among the 18 or so countries that joined the boycott, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba and Russia are countries that have stood up to the foremost imperialist in modern times. The United States of America, for everyone’s information, maintains 800 military bases in 130 countries and continues to trigger wars in smaller countries on all continents of the globe (except Australia).
Cuba, meanwhile, has withstood US economic blockade since 1960; Vietnam defeated the US in 1975; Venezuela has defied Uncle Sam to the benefit of Venezuelans and nationalized the oil industry which the US once controlled; while Russia has gone tit-for-tat with the US in arms control, missile defense, South Ossetian independence, and a lot more since Putin restored Russian sovereignty.
It would be more correct to describe the detractors of the Peace Prize boycott as a gaggle of weak minds for wittingly or unwittingly missing such obvious facts.
This gaggle among the local crop of naysayers should not surprise anyone anymore. The Philippine intelligentsia is still a colonial vestige that survives and thrives on the handouts of the imperial power. From the nurturing of their journalistic careers (with grants, scholarships, and visas), to the multi-national advertising money poured in for their media organizations, to funding for “human rights journalism” and recruitment to US academe, not to mention prestigious awards and prizes, this intelligentsia merely sucks from the great imperialist’s bosom.
Francisco Tatad, for instance, tells a story of this writer he saw decades ago in Washington DC. As he saw the latter tugging his luggage and making his way to State Department offices at the Watergate complex, the writer (now one of the most vitriolic in the Philippine Star on the Peace Prize issue) said, “Pera-pera lang ito,” revealing his role as a US hack.
The real surprise is that among the countries that boycotted the Nobel Peace Prize, Afghanistan and Colombia are both under US control. Were the leaders of these countries instructed to join or was it their way of nudging their American masters for more “aid” as it seems to be their habit?
The boycott from Ukraine is no longer surprising as it is under the new pro-Russia president Victor Yanukovych. Sudan, another country fighting off Western attempts to split it into two — the North whose President Bashir is persecuted by the International Criminal Court for “genocide,” a charge no African country believes, and the oil-rich South that has pro-US rebel forces — also joined the boycott. Iran, as we know, has defied the West’s nuclear apartheid for quite some time, so its boycott came as no surprise.
Other boycotting countries include Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Serbia (which has real issues against the West, such as the separation of Kosovo, later placed under the leadership of a Mafioso and organ smuggler), Pakistan (which has given the West the best runaround on its nuclear arsenal), Egypt , Morocco… and then the Philippines.
As I have said before, even if the Philippine boycott was for mistaken reasons, it was the “right” mistake, which may be a first step in wriggling a toe away from the US straight jacket. Hopefully it won’t go the direction of Gloria Arroyo who got one toe out in the Iraq pull-out but soon learned that the US will still give her free rein if only for corruption, subservience, and personal convenience — but never for political independence.
About the Nobel Peace Prize’s latest Trojan horse, Liu Xiaobo, few know that he rooted not only for the US attack on Iraq, but also praised the US-Nato-led Afghan War and campaigns for China to be fully westernized. For local intelligentsia such as the PEN writers who condemned China, westernization and colonial mind slavery are a ticket to more visas and Western literary awards or grants.
How can anyone with a right mind award a Peace Prize to a war monger, and worse, to one that seeks to erase Asian historical and cultural legacy? The mainstream of Philippine opposition to the Peace Prize boycott is conveniently weak, if not absent-minded. It likes to shoot from the hip while knowing very little about the Nobel laureate and hardly considers the recent turn for pro-war figures of the Peace Prize committee chairman, Thorbjoern Jagland, a Nato war hawk and concurrent chairman of the hawkish Council of Europe.
The Philippine anti-boycott voices reflect the prevailing colonial mentality of local intelligentsia. It explains why the Philippines is unable to break free from colonial exploitation and oppression, making the nation exceedingly poorer.
If the nation’s intelligentsia today were only half as proud and independent as those of Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, Iran, or China, our nation would long have stayed at the forefront of Asian intellectual leadership as the revolutionary intellectual Rizal and company showed. As things stand, a Philippines that exists only under the shadow of the US will never grow intellectually, cultural, politically, and economically.
(Tune in to Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; watch Politics Today with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on Global News Network, Destiny Cable channel 8; visit our blogs, http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com; P.S.-“10 minutes lights out vs power plunderers,” 7 to 7:10 p.m., Monday nights)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
