DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
6/13/2012
Just as the nation felt the relief of lowered gas prices for a week or two, conditions in the Middle East just as quickly started raising crude oil prices anew, with the Philippines bracing for new oil price hikes this week. These fluctuations came at a time when Philippine "King of Comedy" Dolphy's long drawn-out health battles and subsequent demise dominated the airwaves. Despite the entertainment icon's much-deserved accolades, I still wonder why a lot of coverage is being devoted to this when an entire national economy is dying because of unresolved problems in energy supply and price stabilization.
With mainstream media placing so much importance on the life and times of the screen and TV legend, I wonder: Are the hard times best assuaged by comedy instead of serious realism and problem-solving?
Indeed, comedy may lighten the burdens. Comedy may even provide the needed distraction. But the truth is, comedy can never solve our problems. And as reality persists, every moment of distraction only eats away at the opportunities to solve these problems.
I watched my share of John en Marsha as a kid; but as I had often preferred to play and do other things, our yayas were the ones left to watch it. I did wonder over the years how he had one woman after another. I later learned that as the masa spend a lot of money on comedic distractions, which Dolphy was a master of, such artists become so fabulously rich that their innate charisma is magnified to the hilt. Thus, in Dolphy's case, with his string of romances, he also sired quite a number of children, some of whom, unfortunately, turned to murder and arson for self-expression.
When I became oriented to economics as I am today, and contemplated on what such kind of comedy has really contributed to Philippine society, I found that the benefit accrues mainly to the elite. It's not that they follow Dolphy's work; but it's rather due to the distraction of the masses from potential thoughts of dissatisfaction and rebellion.
When egged on for political candidacy Dolphy once joked, "No way. I might win, then what do I do?" So why is the country taking him so seriously when he has never taken himself half as seriously?
Some types of comedy require a lot brains, like stand-ups. Charlie Chaplin once said, "All I need to make a comedy is a park, a policeman and a pretty girl." Although Chaplin had serious social and political commentary in his later features, with some saying the same for Dolphy's John en Marsha or Home Along da Riles, it seemed to me that the latter dwelt more on self-deprecation and a come-what-may acceptance of the depressing lot faced by lower classed Filipinos, instead of making them think about its causes.
So how seriously should audiences take comedians? Saturday Night Live's Dennis Miller said, "I'm a comedian, for God's sake. Viewers shouldn't trust me. And you know what? They're hip enough to know they shouldn't trust me." Sadly, comedy and entertainment are extolled to the extreme in profit-seeking societies because they are a business; and as Steve Martin says, "Comedy may be big business but it isn't pretty."
Exploitation in the entertainment industry is as bad as it is in the regular capitalist economy, though there are efforts by industry Samaritans like Erap to establish welfare projects such as the Movie Workers Welfare Fund (Mowelfund); still, it cannot be doubted that a greater number of support actors and cast retire into poverty while only a few live in the opulence of movie potentates.
Let me pick a quote again from another renowned entertainment icon, Sholem Aleichem, writer of Fiddler on the Roof: "Life is a dream for the wise, a game for the fool, a comedy for the rich, a tragedy for the poor." And life will always be this way if comedy and entertainment become the focus of Philippine society instead of, as I would prefer, watching the tragedy. As Aldous Huxley once said, "We participate in a tragedy; at a comedy we only look."
It's time to get serious and demand such headlines as "Government approves six months oil buffer stock" so that the country could tide over periods of manipulated high oil prices with stocks of low-priced oil; or "ERC (Energy Regulatory Commission) total revamp… Consumer protectionists appointed;" followed by "New ERC investigates sweetheart deals," uncovering 900 percent overpricing in the tens of thousands of power transformers and substations a power company has been buying from its sister company all the past decades; or better yet, "ERC cuts Meralco (Manila Electric Co.) rates by 50 percent." Now, wouldn't all these elicit euphoria and a genuine comedy in the sense of a "happy ending?"
None of these can ever happen if the nation is glued to comedy day in and day out, which, in a sense, even the shows of Willie Revillame are. Only when the nation gets serious about its crisis and tragedy can it be galvanized into action.
If the progressive countries of today such as China, Singapore, Venezuela, et al. had spent their days indulging in comedy instead of revolution, they would certainly have ended up like the Philippines today.
Laughter is not the best medicine when you have cancer; it is radical intervention with all the means at one's command. And in a country such as ours which is in the midst of a socio-political and economic cancer, even a healthy dose of comedy wouldn't amount to much.
(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., this week on "Consumer Updates: Water and Power Scams;" visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com)
Friday, July 13, 2012
Monday, July 9, 2012
Free the Chief Justice
DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
7/9/2012
Since the gates opened on the jockeying for the position of Philippine Supreme Court (SC) chief justice (CJ), the horses that have entered the race have reached ridiculous numbers.
That was the prevailing sentiment we got over lunch with some media men and politicos, where one top editor of a major daily even exclaimed, "How many are now in the race? Sixty? The noise in the jostling for the CJ post is now like a market place!"
It happened just a day after lawyers Bono Adaza and Alan Paguia, along with Jojo Borja and myself, filed a petition before the SC — at the height of last week's rains — for it to issue a "Certiorari and Prohibition with a Prayer for a TRO, Writ of Preliminary versus President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III and the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC)" to stop the continuing malpractice of the presidential appointment of the chief magistrate, which debases and subjugates the highest judicial official of the land and the supposedly independent body he or she leads.
Sadly, there were no press or media people who covered the filing last Tuesday, partly due to the heavy rains and widespread flooding. The chief of reporters of Destiny Cable's Global News Network (GNN), for instance, texted that his people were constrained from covering the event as they were assigned to various flood relief centers. And while the same must have been true for the other media outfits, we decided to bring the campaign to the media kapihans in order to better inform the public on the issues involved.
At the Friday Rembrandt media forum, both Adaza and Paguia presented the case while I distributed a press statement announcing the launching of the Movement for Chief Justice Independence (MCJI), a campaign to generate public awareness and support for freeing the Chief Justice from presidential influence and control through the current malpractice of presidential appointment.
While the petition was jumpstarted when a number of volunteers pitched in for the cost of its filing, the media support was even more impressive.
In all the forums we pitched this proposal to, we never failed to elicit the support of all those in attendance. On the legal question, Adaza and Paguia presented indisputable evidence by first citing the provisions of the Constitution and then asking any doubters to point to any statement assigning to the JBC the power to nominate and to the President the power to appoint the CJ.
As Paguia repeatedly stresses, since it is a question of fact, all the legal doubters need to do is point to any constitutional proviso that grants such powers — when, in fact, there is absolutely none.
Thus, Adaza writes, "The reason why other Presidents got away with violating the Constitution is due to the fact that no citizen had questioned their authority. Now, there are citizens who are concerned with the rape of the Constitution by public officials and the drift of the rule of law in this country, that there is need to stop this unconstitutional practice in the national interest."
To this writer's surprise, some newspapers carried the item last Friday suggesting that our petition was dismissed, with some even saying "one down, two to go," referring to the three petitions questioning the current conduct of the nominations by the JBC. If that were true, it would only indicate uncharacteristic haste and, therefore, betray a fear of something in our petition — for how could it be dismissed in three days when the SC justices hardly have enough time to study the many petitions pending before them for close to six months?
Thankfully, a careful reading indicates that only the petition of a certain Famela Dulay, whose arguments do not coincide with ours, has been dismissed, which means that our fight goes on.
Ever since we aired our appeal for support, many more have come to our aid. In addition to all those we acknowledged in a previous column, our heartfelt thanks also go out to Mr. Poem Gratela, as well as a doctor and a rural banker who requested not to be named. We also thank this donor from Bicol who thoughtfully sent us delicacies from his native province. Rest assured that your being part of this movement fuels us to continue pursuing this case. And as we await official action, we will never be deterred by any attempt at misinformation or disinformation.
Even so, there are other advocacies that we must take the cudgels for, such as the water issue.
Last Saturday, we heard the presentation of Gloria Dalida and Rodolfo Javellana Jr. of Water for All Refund Movement (Warm) on their petition vs Manny Pangilinan, the Consunji Group, and a long list of respondents on the scam in our privatized water services, which is as huge a scam as that in the power sector. Hopefully, we'll have them on our GNN show in the coming days to link them up with all our fellow electricity advocates.
So as we jostle in the legal arena, there must be similar action in other fronts to make for a holistic and authentic democratic order. Our nation must unite against the exploitation and oppression of the local and global oligarchs, who conspire to squeeze the people into abject poverty and helpless prostration. We must not wait any longer.
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Interpreting garbage laws
BACKBENCHER
Rod P. Kapunan
7/7-8/2012
Looking back at that blot on our judicial history, the decision to remove the sitting chief justice of the Supreme Court indeed highlighted the country as a pariah in the international legal circle. As we Filipinos would often consider ourselves, the impeachment of Renato Corona put truism in us as "only in the Philippines."
We must bear in mind that the law used to impeach the chief justice was legislated consequent to our lunatic pretension of wanting to be known all over the world as democratically honest. We recall that ignominious event to question the idiotic philosophy that goaded the authors to make it compulsory to all public officials to declare their bank deposits in their Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth.
My lawyer-friend who is more philosophical than legalistic in his perspective began by putting forward that individuals are supposed to be punished if what has been proven constitutes a crime, meaning that even if there is no law declaring such act as offensive or injurious to society, mankind, by its desire to have an orderly and peaceful society, would nonetheless declare the commission of the act punishable.
In that infamous case, the chief justice was punished using a garbage law that in substance would not constitute an offense or a crime. It was the legislative fiat declaring such act malum prohibitum that made the act punishable, viz. that what Corona did was a diligent act a person in his right mind would normally do. His act was not mala in se that he could be punished even without a law declaring it a crime as the act is inherently injurious and contrary to civilized conduct of man.
So, by any legal extrapolation, my friend said, no amount of legislation could transform an act of any public official not to include in his SALN his bank account to a crime. It is for this that the framers of the Constitution specifically enumerated the high crimes that could be made a ground to impeach some high officials. Yet, we kicked out a chief justice not for a crime, but for violation of the capricious law, and worse, for one that does not even fall into the category of a high crime.
Since to make a deposit is accepted and a normal thing to do, that act must logically be reinforced by laws guaranteeing the secrecy of one's bank deposits, but giving room to some exception. The exception is few because that follows the same logical presumption of innocence to one who might stand as accused, and that is for the accuser to prove.
The same has been raised by my good friend-lawyer in asking why our mentally deranged lawmakers opted to pass a law declaring as a form of violence against women should a husband refuse to give financial support to his wife. Up to now many wonder about that silly conclusion of equating failure or refusal to give support as equivalent to violence. In fact, by any stretch of one's imagination, violence is the act of inflicting harm or physical pain to another, in this case to a wife. In fact, the act is already punished by existing laws.
There is no question that support is an acknowledged legal obligation. That becomes mandatory if there has been a judgment of divorce or legal separation of which the guilty party is ordered by the court to give alimony or support to the innocent spouse. But instead of fine tuning those laws to re-enforce and increase the grounds for financial support, our mentally deranged solons proceeded to interpret that as an act of violence, when the guilty party could simply be punished for contempt or defiance to a lawful order.
It is for this reason why many have been calling the laws recently passed by our lawmakers as garbage. They stand as exposition of their insanity. One could easily detect they were enacted just to boost the ego of the author, for want of anything to do, or to appease fanatical pressure groups wanting to highlight their misguided role in our society. Some of them may even be funded by foreign non-governmental organizations out to weaken our democratic institution by injecting outlandish rights that could trigger enmity among our people.
Yes, there are rights which our society should accord to women, but certainly they do not include rights that would result in the diminution on the rights of men for that could mean discrimination, and in contravention to what society has declared as co-equal. The same can be said of other pressure groups. Each has its own peculiar interest to elevate as a right. The problem is nobody has come to think that those interests could only become viable as a right for as long as they would not transgress on the rights of others.
It is for this reason why many have become apprehensive in that decision to remove Corona. Even if we take it that Corona was convicted after he waived his right, his waiver did not result in him violating the law because they remained legal. His waiver was not an act of legislation to enact a new law to single himself out. But sadly, our lawmakers failed to see that point.
We must bear in mind that the law used to impeach the chief justice was legislated consequent to our lunatic pretension of wanting to be known all over the world as democratically honest. We recall that ignominious event to question the idiotic philosophy that goaded the authors to make it compulsory to all public officials to declare their bank deposits in their Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth.
My lawyer-friend who is more philosophical than legalistic in his perspective began by putting forward that individuals are supposed to be punished if what has been proven constitutes a crime, meaning that even if there is no law declaring such act as offensive or injurious to society, mankind, by its desire to have an orderly and peaceful society, would nonetheless declare the commission of the act punishable.
In that infamous case, the chief justice was punished using a garbage law that in substance would not constitute an offense or a crime. It was the legislative fiat declaring such act malum prohibitum that made the act punishable, viz. that what Corona did was a diligent act a person in his right mind would normally do. His act was not mala in se that he could be punished even without a law declaring it a crime as the act is inherently injurious and contrary to civilized conduct of man.
So, by any legal extrapolation, my friend said, no amount of legislation could transform an act of any public official not to include in his SALN his bank account to a crime. It is for this that the framers of the Constitution specifically enumerated the high crimes that could be made a ground to impeach some high officials. Yet, we kicked out a chief justice not for a crime, but for violation of the capricious law, and worse, for one that does not even fall into the category of a high crime.
Since to make a deposit is accepted and a normal thing to do, that act must logically be reinforced by laws guaranteeing the secrecy of one's bank deposits, but giving room to some exception. The exception is few because that follows the same logical presumption of innocence to one who might stand as accused, and that is for the accuser to prove.
The same has been raised by my good friend-lawyer in asking why our mentally deranged lawmakers opted to pass a law declaring as a form of violence against women should a husband refuse to give financial support to his wife. Up to now many wonder about that silly conclusion of equating failure or refusal to give support as equivalent to violence. In fact, by any stretch of one's imagination, violence is the act of inflicting harm or physical pain to another, in this case to a wife. In fact, the act is already punished by existing laws.
There is no question that support is an acknowledged legal obligation. That becomes mandatory if there has been a judgment of divorce or legal separation of which the guilty party is ordered by the court to give alimony or support to the innocent spouse. But instead of fine tuning those laws to re-enforce and increase the grounds for financial support, our mentally deranged solons proceeded to interpret that as an act of violence, when the guilty party could simply be punished for contempt or defiance to a lawful order.
It is for this reason why many have been calling the laws recently passed by our lawmakers as garbage. They stand as exposition of their insanity. One could easily detect they were enacted just to boost the ego of the author, for want of anything to do, or to appease fanatical pressure groups wanting to highlight their misguided role in our society. Some of them may even be funded by foreign non-governmental organizations out to weaken our democratic institution by injecting outlandish rights that could trigger enmity among our people.
Yes, there are rights which our society should accord to women, but certainly they do not include rights that would result in the diminution on the rights of men for that could mean discrimination, and in contravention to what society has declared as co-equal. The same can be said of other pressure groups. Each has its own peculiar interest to elevate as a right. The problem is nobody has come to think that those interests could only become viable as a right for as long as they would not transgress on the rights of others.
It is for this reason why many have become apprehensive in that decision to remove Corona. Even if we take it that Corona was convicted after he waived his right, his waiver did not result in him violating the law because they remained legal. His waiver was not an act of legislation to enact a new law to single himself out. But sadly, our lawmakers failed to see that point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
