'Ap-piece-ment'

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

10/12/2012

The acknowledged territory of the Republic of the Philippines has since Edsa I been apportioned to foreign countries: a piece here, a piece there. Sabah, ARMM and now the expanded Bangsamoro and the Sulu Sea. This is "ap-piece-ment" of the Republic to the foreign powers and interests. Led by a scion of the Yellow ruling class, the country now submits again the Filipino people to humiliation and imperial victimization again in an onerous, destructive ceding of Cotabato City, Isabela City, and the municipalities of Baloi, Munai, Nunungan, Pantar, Tagoloan and Tangkal in Lanao del Norte province, barangays from Kabacan, Carmen, Aleosan, Pigkawayan, Pikit and Midsayap towns in Cotabato City, and the greatest prize of all — the Sulu Sea where Exxonmobile and others have has set its eyes on.

GRP peace panel negotiator Marvic Leonen says no foreign influence figured in the peace deal, but not so secret "dirty little secret" is that the USIP (United Institute for Peace) led by J. Robinson West of the largest energy consulting firm PFC Energy, has its dirty hand all over it. Leonen's prevarication shows that the peace talk panel representing the Philippines and its work deserves no respect from the Filipino people as the panel is devoid of integrity. The peace talks are an expensive sham. The UNDP stepped up to gift the major Philippine peace panel negotiator an N-Peace Network award, to reinforce the respectability of this ap-piece-ment and the negotiators who carved off more pieces of Filipino flesh to the Western oil interest. UN agencies are invariably used as tools of US and Western powers to legitimize imperial projects with such honorific blessings, such as in Kosovo which was wrest from Serbia.

The other title for this article is "Pipsqueak Leaders," highlighting how small or insignificant this country's leadership is before the subterfuges and pressures of the US and Britain (represented by client Malaysia) to negotiate away 75 percent of the economic wealth of the country. As the rebel MILF band's vice chief for Political Affairs Ghadzali Jaafar told the Philippines over a radio interview their 75 percent share is non-negotiable. Ninety percent of that 75 percent will go to the US and Britain while crumbs will be thrown to the likes of Jaafar empowering them to be little potentates like the US surrogates in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, etc. Can Bangsamoro ever become a developed state? Not in anyone's lifetime. It'll be just like feudal, archaic Middle Eastern kingdoms the US controls and ready when needed to be used to control US hegemony as the potentates do in the Middle East.

Pipsqueak Philippine media pushes "ap-piece-ment," too: from Inquirer: "The glowing praises are richly deserved. After a protracted internecine war, one that has brought untold suffering on Muslim Mindanao, there's real hope the war may finally end."  What about he "untold suffering" of Filipino soldiers who fought to defend all Filipinos' sovereignty and the Filipinos' continuing impoverishment with the looting of 75 percent of its economic wealth in the Sulu Sea? In the Philippine Star one writes, "Leonen has convinced me from a distance that it is providential the Bangsamoro will be born during the watch of President Aquino whose only concern is peace and prosperity for the people of Mindanao … Since I see no alternative, I am willing to take my chance with it." Providential my eye, curses instead: Cory Aquino gave Sabah away; BS Aquino III cedes even more territories.

No alternative? The alternative is clear — defend national sovereignty over all our territory undisputed in any international forum. President Marcos defended that sovereignty, won and laid the basis for a durable peace with the Tripoli Agreement; but after he was deposed in 1986 by the conspiracy of the US and local oligarchs, the US stooge who succeeded him, Corazon Aquino, returned to the country the leader of the defeated MNLF and reinvigorated the secession movement. Likewise, under President Estrada the MILF was demolished at Camp Abubakar and its leader Hashim Salamat fled to Malaysia and beseeched US President Bush to restore him in Mindanao. When Estrada was deposed by the same forces that deposed Marcos, the Edsa II successor Gloria Arroyo restored the MILF to its former glory. Forgetting is not an option.

Two years back I wrote "The Traitor Class," about the Yellows cabal in Philippine politics that serve as handmaiden of the foreign powers. While that class runs the show in the country the Philippines will never win any of its struggles against the imperial and neo-colonial powers. How I envy those countries in Latin America that are already in the process of successfully throwing off the yoke of colonialism by nationalizing foreign resource-extraction and public utilities corporations, striking independent foreign policies, respecting each other's sovereignty, opposing foreign interventionism. Venezuela just overwhelmed the US sponsored presidential candidate for Hugo Chavez. In the Philippines, time will come when we can revisit the Mindanao issues and recreate a truly just peace that keeps the national intact for all Filipinos benefit and welfare.

(Watch Destiny Cable GNN's HTL edition channel 8, Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., replay 11:15 p.m. and Sunday, and on www.gnntv-asia.com: this week "Filipino Homegrown Franchises Expo"; tune to 1098AM radio Tuesday to Friday 5 to 6 p.m. http://newkatipunan.blogspot.com)

Political dynasty-ism

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

10/8/2012

Objections to family political dynasties are based on the old democratic ideal of decentralization and distribution of political power to as many representations as possible. Enshrining that ideal in the Philippine Constitution in 1987 was a reflection of the national and popular sentiment of that time. It also reflected the belief in the Rule of Law; i.e. that once the ban on dynasties was made a constitutional principle then the ideal would prevail. The current backlash to the resurgence and proliferation of members of political families simultaneously occupying and running for high political offices, and/or transferring such offices to their succeeding generation reassure us that that ideal of distributive democracy is still alive; but the reality is that 25 years after the writing of the anti-dynasty provision these ideals are under mortal threatened from resurgent political dynasty-ism.

The anti-dynasty provision of the Constitution needs a law to be implementable and realizable. Unfortunately, that law has to be written by the Congress that has a long tradition of having ubiquitous old feudal, provincial-political, business oligarchy, sectarian religious families dominating it affairs. The enactment of a law to realize the anti-dynasty provision of the Constitution and the ideal of democratization of political power is put in the hands of the very same political families or dynasties that find the anti-dynasty idea anathema and wouldn't lift a finger to remove themselves from the Philippine power structure. It should be no surprise then that after 25 years, four administrations and congresses, no progress has been made in enacting any anti-dynasty law. Worse, dynasties have multiplied and consolidated.

One of the reasoning behind that anti-dynasty campaign is "power begets power," hence political power and its possession must be limited by political reform through legislation. For example, term limits for all levels of elective government officials: Hence we have three year terms of limited three term re-election for local and congressional officials, six year two term limit for senators and six-year one term, no re-election for president. Even these limits are being assailed by politicians today. The anti-dynasty provision of the Constitution is also besieged. The defense of the Rule of the Dynasties come ironically from the highest office of the land that is sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, that is Malacañang; but again, we should not be surprised as its occupant is the epitome of the system — at least third generation heir of a political family, the Aquinos.

Malacañang's defense of the dynasties can be ridiculous. Here is one report from Madel Sabater, "Malacañang yesterday said there is nothing wrong with political dynasties, stressing that electing a public official should not be based on the name but on qualifications and track record. Deputy presidential spokesman Abigail Valte said it will be the voters who will decide if they are for government officials who have relatives in other elective government posts." But it is the dynasty principle that precisely puts the name of the candidate above all else, making political parties draft candidates solely on that basis to take advantage of "name recall," accumulated political family goodwill from the barangay captains to the Armed Forces of the Philippines or Philippine National Police members and Comelec, and the financial resources from years of legislative pork barrel accumulations.

Think of the qualifications of the candidates who inherit their candidacy from their incumbent parents, what can you find? Generally — nothing. There are a few good ones aided by their political parents in learning the craft of government, but the vast majority never had any background or inclination in public service. Some heirs have criminal past, like that drug user convicted in Hong Kong who will inherit his father's post this time around or another who has a rumored murder case that has not come to light due to a parent's political umbrage. Let's assume some of these dynastic political tykes may have potential, but their preemptive candidacies invariably deny opportunities to other aspirants who may be much more deserving, qualified and with glaring and proven public track records of advocacies and service.

Political dynasties flourish in many societies of diverse and contradictory political philosophies and systems. The Bush or Kennedy families in the US are dynasties, the "princelings" in China today are third generation heirs of the Communist Party of China from the time of Mao, Kim Jung Un is third generation in North Korea; in all these societies too there are currents and undercurrents of anti-dynasty sentiment and actual initiatives. The dialectics between the democratic principle and dynastic concentration of power will continue alongside the evolution of political and economic power based on the social and intellectual developments in the nation. If our ideals for modern and progressive distributive democracy and economics are to survive and overcome the trend toward the institutionalization of political and economic neo-feudalism, we must say no to political dynasty-ism.

(Watch Destiny Cable GNN's HTL edition of Talk News TV, Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11:15 p.m. and Sunday, and on www.gnntv-asia.com: this week "Filipino Franchises On a Roll"; tune to 1098AM radio Tuesday to Friday 5 to 6 p.m. http://newkatipunan.blogspot.com)

The presidency or the republic (Part III)

BACKBENCHER

Rod P. Kapunan

10/6-7/2012

Third, we ought to recall that when President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law, the nation was already teetering towards chaos. Both the Left and the Right were collaborating in a systematic campaign to topple the government. Given that situation, the declaration of martial law was not the result of any personal motivation, but a duty reposed upon him as commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. No President could abnegate from that responsibility without committing treason.

As some political observers would put it, martial law was a big political gamble for Marcos. It was political suicide because his chances of being redeemed were slim. Yet, for that act of trying to save the Republic, he was condemned. There could be truth to that if he used martial law to consolidate power, in lieu of not having accomplished anything. On the contrary, he was the only president to be reelected in a clean, honest and fair election on the basis of his achievements in the 1969 election against Sergio Osmeña, Jr. He even obtained more votes in his reelection bid than when he first ran against President Diosdado Macapagal in 1965.

Besides, when Marcos declared martial law, his term had yet to expire up to January 1973. However, the ratification of the 1973 Constitution by the people automatically made him the interim President, and the process of ratification was upheld by the Supreme Court in the cases of Javellana vs. Executive Secretary and Sanidad vs. Comelec.

It follows that those who were affected should never interpret their experience as a personal injury inflicted by the State or by Marcos, but the price for their participation to ripen their brand of revolution. Invariably, the charge that Marcos suspended the writ and later imposed martial law just to hold on to power is an attempt to distort historical facts. In the first place, martial law could have been avoided had it not for the Maoists' virulent agitation and attacks against the government.

Fourth, martial law is constitutionally provided, and the president is mandated to exercise it when necessary. The present constitution, as well as the 1935 Constitution which Marcos invoked, provides for that kind of defensive political mechanism.

Some constitutionalists and political writers would even go as far as saying that the survival of the State remains paramount; that in its defense, power could be exercised by the president even if not provided in the constitution. Classic to this was when US Chief Justice Roger B. Taney questioned the authority of President Abraham Lincoln to declare martial law, saying there was no provision in the US Constitution giving him that power.

That question cropped up in that famous incident where an arrest order was issued without a warrant to a secessionist leader in Maryland by the name of John Merryman. Justice Taney ordered the release of Merryman, but President Lincoln ignored it. Justice Taney then raised the point about the authority of President Lincoln to declare martial law. For that, Lincoln wryly asked: "Are we going to save the Constitution or the Union?"

That famous comment made by Lincoln thus carved out a political and constitutional theory that the survival of the State remains paramount; that it could act in its defense even if not so provided in the Constitution.

In the case of President Marcos, the issues about the constitutionality and validity in the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and subsequent declaration of martial law are provided in the 1935 Constitution, specifically Section 10(2), Article VII. The leeway given to the petitioners who questioned his exercise of the emergency power was indicative that the liberties of the people remain primordial to him. It cannot be less than that, for he only had on his side the truth; that as President, his duty is to protect the people, their government, and their sacred institutions.

For that matter, even the Cory Aquino-commissioned 1987 Constitution provided for the same emergency political mechanism in Section 18, Article VII although imposing stringent conditions to validate its imposition.

If there were murky issues that were not clearly resolved by the Supreme Court, the validity in the imposition of martial law nonetheless should have been laid to rest. It is not that we want the petitioners to acquiesce to those errors, assuming there were errors, but on the basis that the high court has already spoken. As a rule, the opposition-petitioners are duty-bound to accept the decision, except when there is a palpable denial of due process or that it was arrived at with grave abuse of discretion. Nobody has the right to reject the decision on the basis that he disagrees with it.

The decision arrived at by the majority of the members of the Supreme Court did not only uphold the legality and constitutionality of martial law, but most important affirmed the factual basis that warranted its imposition. Maybe Marcos benefited from that valid and legal exercise of power, but fate of circumstance was clear that whoever was the President during those tense and unsettling hours in the life of the Republic would nonetheless have done the same. If General MacArthur was quoted saying "there is no substitute for victory", there is also that equal truism that nobody would readily part away his own survival.

Fifth, often we fail to weigh between the positive and negative effects of martial law. Those who were harping in defense of people's rights should have taken that first step to balance the temporary curtailment of their freedom from the higher goals martial law sought to accomplish.

(rpkapunan@gmail.com)