New Society, part II: What's wrong with a transition government?

Manolo Quezon III had a very interesting take on concepts and ideas being entertained by certain groups to solve a problem like Gloria. His column today talks about talks between Arroyo's intel chief, Bert Gonzales and Chief Justice Reynato Puno. Sources from the opposition, whom Manolo did not mention, say that Puno and BertGon are in the "thick of things", talking about the possibility of a transition government, austensibly along the lines of Macoy's New Society. And since these men are either beneficiaries or victims of that New Society, there is now, what Manolo believes to be common ground among them.

Actually, the idea of a council-type of government has been there since 1989. During the Cory administration, a group of idealistic military officers, along with several civilians, formed this concept to address the main issue that hinders the full democratization of governance---the issue of power.

Power, under the present Constitution, is lodged solely in the Executive. Yes, there is what we call "balancing acts" or three branches of government enjoying "equal powers"; but in reality, most of the power is being exercised by the Executive.

The problem with a very powerful Executive is in only applies to unitary governments established in one contiguous area. Power is exercised only thru effective implementation. If you have several major islands and your communication infrastructure is still underdeveloped, you definitely have a problem of fully implementing good policies. Or if your infrastructure is at best, only responsive to certain areas of your territory and the rest is left to the discretion of local executives who do not know any better, then, obviously, governance fails each and every time.

Hence, devolution is the answer. Yet, if the power of the purse still resides on the Executive, then, expect that nothing will ever change because local governments function only when financially equipped. Giving local governments the power of the purse and being responsible for the overall administration of their territories require charter change. And since major economic and political powers here disdain that idea because that would obviously affect the status quo, no substantial change would ever occur. In such a situation, drastic measures ought to be implemented as soon as possible before the entire system collapses due to its inability to give adequate social services.

The best way to save the system from total collapse is entertain the idea of a surgical operation. Seize political power and establish a Council-type of government that would oversee the transition from partially free to full democracy is the best solution. Now, democrats would probably say, that's un-democratic. Probably, even America would issue a public condemnation.

But, if you look closely, there was a point in American history that they resorted to such similar measures. When a country faces the total deterioration of its governmental and political institutions, drastic measures ought to be done immediately either on the short or long-term. Honestly, there's nothing wrong with the concept of New Society. In Marcos time, the problem was Macoy used that only as a propaganda platform. He needed to justify his militarist action and mouthing terms as "pagbabago" or "Bagong Lipunan" gave him political legitimacy.

In our case, pushing for a New Society is the order of the day. Change is a necessity. Now, some people say, why entrust to a few people the fate of our country? I ask them---why entrust it to those now in power when we already know that they're big-time thieves and liars? We've always been under the strong spell of a few elites. And even with another election, that political reality would never, ever, change. For us to really change the present power structure, we need an event that would justify a change in that structure. We need new elites that would serve the people first before anything else.

I think a sizeable number of the populace would agree on a transition government provided that no other member of the Arroyo regime is there. Should this indeed happen, let the major players do it properly. They must not cut corners. For as long as they:

1. Jail Mrs. Arroyo and her husband---there must never be a compromise on this. Mrs. Arroyo has to go.
2. Imprison others who stole billions from the public coffers. Arrest Joc-Joc Bolante and the rest of these big-time operators.
3. Allow members of people's organizations, academe and civil society to take part in national policy-making
4. Enforce the laws.
5. Make peace with revolutionary groups.

...then I see no point of strongly fighting these people. In fact, they need our support. Now, should they fool us, then, they all know what happens to governments that fool the people--they are shot on sight.

Puno says nothing about Independence

Chief Justice Reynaldo Puno is getting angrier every after single controversy happening in our body politic. In Independence rites celebrations before the Bonifacio monument in Caloocan, the Chief Justice said that there's no reason to celebrate since we are still not free.

Honestly, Puno deserves all the attention he's getting especially from the middle class and the elite who tries to prop him up as an alternative presidential candidate. Yet, despite his bravado and his nationalist slants, the Masses have not given him the accolade he deserves. His trust rating is somewhat low and people don't really make sense in all that he's saying. What's wrong?

Puno is saying the right things at the right time, but people are not really taking it seriously. The Masses are just shrugging him off, as if they're saying that Puno's speeches are all air?

It's easy to get angry, but perhaps the reason why people don't associate themselves with that righteous angst is the fact that they see all talk and no action from the Chief Justice. Likewise, they see him as the candidate of the counter-elite, not the one they prefer. But, who is that one person whom the masses really prefer as their candidate?

According to recent studies, the masses prefer a leader who is both conscientious and a man of action. People want leaders who have rock solid integrity, a track record of service to the nation, a program of government and is capable of winning. People hate losers. They don't warm up to the weak, which is a natural human instinct. They flock to the Strong.

In the next few weeks, I, along with some personalities, will ask the People---who do you think deserves to be our leader? Do you prefer those you see on television, mouthing both platitudes and attacks against government? Do you prefer that young turk with a sweet tongue or that young former banker with a beautiful girlfriend? Or, you want to go back to the arms of a disgraced leader? Or you want a new one who'll gobble up thousands of acres of our land and make them into low-cost housing units? Or, a man with a booming voice?

Let the masses decide for us.

Puno For President---designed to fool and fail?

Chief Justice Reynato Puno's call for a moral revolution smacks of a veiled attempt by traditional forces to present an anti-thetical platform against rising public perception of systems failure. It is an attempt to re-shift the focus, from systems change to personality change. Conservative forces who are benefitting from this dysfunctional system are the primary oppositors of real systemic change through revolt, and these forces are moving to perpetuate the democratic way of change through the ballot.

There is a conscious campaign by conservative forces to disabuse the minds of the public, shifting the discourse from systems failure to personality failure, so as to stem the tide of rising dissent. This moralist call also shows how conservative forces are trying to control the developing counter-culture that threatens their very lives and power under the present dispensation. This counter-counter reflects the underbelly of dissent against the prevailing system, since people are now arriving at the conclusive presumption that the ballot is an ineffectual means for change.

The pragmatist in Puno knows that his victory as president is a long shot. Nobody has ever won in a campaign centered on a moral platform. First, people are unconvinced that it's the morals really of those in power which should be blamed for this prevailing fiasco. I know this deviates from my previous presumption and calls also for a "moral revolt", but my treatise is more on the intellectual revolt rather than a moral revolt.

Second, on whose moral code would we base Puno's moral platform? Obviously, his platform would be based on Pacheco's religious biases, which has no proven effectiveness in governance. What if this moral platform conflicts with, say, the Islamic code? How would Puno justify the use of this moral and ethical base platform in actually managing government? Surely, given the fact that morals are culturally rooted, running such a campaign attracts attribution, confusion and utter destruction of values and norms beneath or antithetical to the platform? This will surely attract opposition and worst, serious dissent which could deepen the fissures of disunity among the Filipino people.

Lastly, running under the moral platform shows a possible weaker governance style than the present one. Politics is not for the faint hearted nor the benevolent heart. Bureaucracy is full of bullshit and opportunists. What would Puno do if someone stole billions of pesos, like what Bolante reportedly did? Will he impose the death penalty? Obviously not, since, under a moralist government, it is more humane to allow one person to live and capital punishment is not considered.

Puno should not allow himself to be used by these pseudo change agents and by these conservative forces whose interests are now being threatened by the entry of New Money. The shift of wealth, from land resources to non-land and rent, are threatening the very existence of the old elites. Propping up Puno is a serious last ditch effort at finding solutions to the slowly rising influence of New Money.

Chief Justice Puno destroyed and compromised

Former Communist and now reformed Bishop Nilo Tayag and Ang Kapatiran Party Nandy Pacheco are doing Chief Justice Reynato Puno a great disservice. As I am writing this, Tayag has just announced that over half a million Filipinos, mostly farmers, reportedly just signed a document urging Puno to run as president. Tayag and Pacheco expects to present over 3 million signatures to Puno. They believe that Puno is the right one to head the Philippine state.

I don't want to cast aspersions to Tayag and Pacheco but I share the view of former president Fidel Ramos that their acts are ill-timed and ill-advised. In fact, they really don't know the real effects of such calls for a Puno presidency on the integrity of the Chief of the Highest Tribunal of the land.

They are putting Puno in a very compromising light. Puno still heads the highest tribunal and counts for one vote. With these antics of Tayag and Pacheco, which started last week and up today, Puno's actions will now be interpreted as political instead of judicious acts. Tayag and Pacheco are trying to destroy the credibility and integrity of Puno as an impartial dispenser of justice.

What if Puno decides to vote against charter change? Allies of this administration will use this silly plan of Tayag and Pacheco as fodder for a spirited disinformation or smear campaign against the Chief Justice. Since all acts of Puno are now suspect, and probably seen by many as decisions held hostage by populist overtones, Puno is as useful as a dead horse for those who want to hinder the nefarious plan of Arroyo to extend her term. Definitely, Tayag and Pacheco already destroyed the people's view of Puno as an uncontroversial public servant.

Puno should be left alone and just be allowed to enjoy his legacy as one of the brilliant leaders of the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Puno to lead New People's Revolt?

Seems like we are, indeed, under a revolutionary situation. Think about this, my friends.

We have been deprived of knowing the Truth. Justice has been elusive, examples are efforts at subverting the Supreme Court and recent debacles encountered by the Justice Department. And peace, oh, it's as elusive as those comets in the sky.

Truth has been stripped and raped. Lady Justice is not just blindfolded, but bound by sinister forces. And peace torn into smithereens.

Justice has now grounded to an indefinite halt. Is this cleansing process a move to prepare a favorable justice system post-Gloria? Is Gloria and her minions too paranoid that they are using this occasion to populate the Department of Justice with their favorable yes-men? Is that the reason why the President called on all prosecutors to take a hike?

Amidst this frenzy and noise, the President has just appointed her man to the Supreme Court. Bantay Korte Suprema was taken by surprise. Will the Supreme Court Chief Justice be the next to be sidelined? Maybe. Yet, the attempt could backfire since Puno enjoys the support of many sectors, including the Makati Business Club (MBC).

Or, maybe, just maybe, these underhanded tactics would force the Chief Justice to throw his hand in the presidential derby? Or lead the revolt which he so shunned before?

The Philippine judiciary is being attacked. And the defenders of democracy are preparing themselves for a showdown with the hawks and Machivellis hiding behind the puny dress of Mrs. Arroyo.