Why is it that dictators and even those pseudo ones want nothing more than peace and order? Simple--they don't want anybody to howl while they quietly raid our treasury of gold bars and remittance dollars.
Martial law is not about preserving the state for some real threat. Threats are always imagined ones. When Marcos declared martial law in 1972, he portrayed the ragtag gang of Jose Maria Sison bigger and stronger than what it truly was back then. Reason? Marcos was a U.S. stooge and one of the United States' State Department allies during the Cold War. For his plan to work, Marcos had to appease his imperialist masters and calm the frayed nerves of the international community.
Martial law is not about the future--it is always about the present. Marcos never really cared if, by declaring martial law, he ran the economy aground. He never cared if the military caused untold suffering to the rural folks even in Ilocandia. Surely, he did not care if an entire generation lost their illustrious members and deprive the people of the intelligence of its sons and daughters. No. It was about consolidation of power, of the Marcos' family becoming the most powerful and the wealthiest family in all of Filipino-landia.
Imelda Marcos harbored ill-feelings for the Manila-based socialites who looked at her as a probinsyana (provincial). She was always jealous of their riches, of their mores, and of their education. When martial law was declared, Imelda immediately became the prime dona, the center of gravity and the host of lavish parties all funded by the people's hard-earned monies.
Ever wondered why Imelda had those 10,000 pairs of shoes, those expensive Rembrandts and Manansalas, those sparkling jewels, that big carbon rock and those authentic animal furs? She always told people that she had to dress up for foreigners not to look down upon Filipinos. Well, madame, foreigners would praise you to high heavens if they saw all Filipinos, well-dressed, well-mannered and well fed, which, unfortunately, even at the height of Marcos' glory during Martial law, did not happen.
Martial law is not about anti-criminality--it is always about the monopoly of crimes. Under a dictatorship, nothing happens without the knowledge and approval of the ruling Power. Wonder why addiction persisted and even grew to astronomical heights despite the military occupying nightclubs, bars and even homes? Don't tell me heinous crimes such as murders, rapes, kidnappings, bank robberies stopped for a long time while we were under martial law? The fact was---it even grew. How about smuggling? Pre-martial law days, it was the monopoly of a few Chinos. Enter martial law and another player entered into the picture---military men.
I remember one of my friends, the son of the head of the Binondo central bank sharing with me how their family grew in wealth during martial law. Because Marcos controlled even the flow of foreign currencies, particularly the dollar, businessmen had to rely on his father to supply them with much needed dollars from Hongkong. Biyaheras who were beautiful Chinoys recruited from Binondo frequented Hongkong with their luggages full of worthless pesos, exchanged in dollars somewhere at Hongkong central and then quietly brought to the Philippines for sale to exporters and importers.
Martial law is not about true peace--it is about complicit silence. Marcos wanted everybody to keep their silence while he, along with his family and their cronies, slit the throats of dissenters, open the bank accounts of their enemies, raid the private vaults of businessmen, and steal those gold bars from the Treasury with a note left saying " This is for safekeeping."
Martial law is not about truth--- it is about forced acceptance. Martial law changed our values. Before, Filipinos had "hiya", which is very difficult to transliterate in English. We, Filipinos, respect individual rights, to property, life and liberty. We sacrificed so much for our freedoms only to see it crumble under the crucible of tyranny.
These memories are forty five years old. However, some people, including our President is salivating for its return, not because he wants to curb drug addiction--he is wiser now and accepts the fact that he can't really solve an institutional problem by systematically killing everybody. Of course, Duterte realizes now that the ills of Filipino society cannot just be wished away by a magician's wand or a stroke of a pen. And surely, Duterte is wishing for his immortalization in our history books as the second man to plunge this country into darkness and chaos, which he is already doing, without even writing a Proclamation.
Duterte, despite his old age, wants more power. He enjoyed the sweet smell of power and he wants to sniff more. When he says that he does not want the presidency and anytime he's willing to back down and leave, don't believe a single word! Power is Duterte's nicotine. Look at how Duterte's face shine whenever he hears someone killed by cops or when he sees destruction, the likes he saw in Marawi. For 23 years, Duterte satisfied himself with killing small fries, and ordering the massacre of families and barangays. As President, Duterte realizes how powerful the position is. He always says he owns the military and the police. Duterte sometimes attack oligarchs because he loves reading how scared these oligarchs are in his favorite newspapers, even the Inquirer. He has billions of pesos at his disposal, cavalierly giving those to cops who kill even innocents just to be at par with others, enriched by Duterte's blood monies.
Duterte does not care if forty five years and billions spent for the de-militarization of the police organization. Duterte does not give a damn if innocents fall by the wayside, who are, for him, unfortunate casualties in an imagined war. Duterte loves wars. He finds satisfaction, like an LSD addict, whenever a bomb explodes in Marawi, whenever news about thousands of evacuees fill the headlines and whenever a police team barges in someone's home and mows everybody down including the owner's dog.
Duterte hates addicts. He wants to kill them. Yeah, right.
Showing posts with label martial law in the philippines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label martial law in the philippines. Show all posts
Monday, September 18, 2017
Friday, September 21, 2012
Martial Law and the Need for an Authentic People's Revolution
It pains me to read blog entries and articles depicting the martial law era here in our country as something which many sees as "the ideal" governmental setup in our history. Many people believe that martial rule was "the ideal" because there was peace and order, and people obeyed the law. It is also "the ideal" because many iconic structures which are still regarded today as the country's monuments were made during this era. Likewise, people compare the "roads" of yesteryears and the big megastructures built during the Marcos era as incomparably superior than those made after Marcos.
Credit this, to the slow erosion of the people's trust in our institutions. Shortly after the fall of Marcos, all Filipinos thought that things will change for the better. Twenty years past, there is a general perception among Filipinos that things went from worse to worst. Fact is, the very ills that many people thought bedevilled Philippine society from the very beginning of this Republic's birth, began to take shape in another form, with the same lethal power.
Martial law was supposed to be the socio-political panacea against every single ill of our society. Many people still had this crazy idea that had Marcos stayed on course in his "Bagong Lipunan" theorem, it would have been better.
No.
Martial law was not a cure but a curse. Bagong Lipunan was never a revolution, it was just a prop meant to lull a militant people into acquiesce.
Instead of changing social structures and revolutionizing processes and functions, martial rule tried to preserve the best features of eroding institutions, enabling it to survive a possible revolutionary onslaught by the Filipino People.
Marcos was right on when he signed Proclamation 1081 as the State's answer against the raging tide of Socialism. He was head of Asia's semi-capitalist state. His duty is to protect the way of life as he and his social class know it.
Marcos used martial law not to change Philippine society but to arrest its eventual decline. The decadence of that era rivalled that of Nero's Rome. Marcos used his iron hand not just to prevent the Revolutionaries of that era from ascending to power.
And since there was no legitimate desire to change, only to legitimize his rule, Marcos strayed from the golden opportunity to direct the course of development by destroying the very institutions of decadence. Instead, Marcos tried to resuscitate those ailing and rotting levers of the superstructure, doing what his Capitalist masters wanted him to do.
Marcos was neither a revolutionary nor a visionary. He was, plain and simply, a preserver of the old status quo.
His very act, which he cloaked in propaganda terms as "Bagong Lipunan", was never revolutionary. It was purely reactionary. Bagong Lipunan was just a thesis meant to show that things were different, when in truth and in fact, the same society was actively promoted and supported by Marcos.
The greatest sin that Marcos did to the Filipino People was he gave them the impression that he was the Moses of his people, when, in truth and in fact, he became their Bane.
It is not only Marcos that erred in those times.
I accuse those people who ascended into power after Marcos' ouster. They are worse than the Dictator because they pretended to be better than him when, in truth and in fact, they are nothing more than poor copycats.
These people perpetuated the system that the people condemned. They pretended to be promoters of democracy, when it was plutocracy that they truly pursued.
These people promoted a bourgeois capitalist system that further worsened both the economic and social spheres.
Instead of arresting the decline of Philippine society, things got worse because the root causes of our misery remain deeply imbedded within the very structure which we adopted from the West.
Now, more than ever, we need a change of the system. We need a surgical solution. We need a total overhaul of this system which oppresses the Filipino People.
The Filipino People is ripe for a revolution that will promote a totally different system, a system that equalizes opportunities, and gives every single individual his due.
Credit this, to the slow erosion of the people's trust in our institutions. Shortly after the fall of Marcos, all Filipinos thought that things will change for the better. Twenty years past, there is a general perception among Filipinos that things went from worse to worst. Fact is, the very ills that many people thought bedevilled Philippine society from the very beginning of this Republic's birth, began to take shape in another form, with the same lethal power.
Martial law was supposed to be the socio-political panacea against every single ill of our society. Many people still had this crazy idea that had Marcos stayed on course in his "Bagong Lipunan" theorem, it would have been better.
No.
Martial law was not a cure but a curse. Bagong Lipunan was never a revolution, it was just a prop meant to lull a militant people into acquiesce.
Instead of changing social structures and revolutionizing processes and functions, martial rule tried to preserve the best features of eroding institutions, enabling it to survive a possible revolutionary onslaught by the Filipino People.
Marcos was right on when he signed Proclamation 1081 as the State's answer against the raging tide of Socialism. He was head of Asia's semi-capitalist state. His duty is to protect the way of life as he and his social class know it.
Marcos used martial law not to change Philippine society but to arrest its eventual decline. The decadence of that era rivalled that of Nero's Rome. Marcos used his iron hand not just to prevent the Revolutionaries of that era from ascending to power.
And since there was no legitimate desire to change, only to legitimize his rule, Marcos strayed from the golden opportunity to direct the course of development by destroying the very institutions of decadence. Instead, Marcos tried to resuscitate those ailing and rotting levers of the superstructure, doing what his Capitalist masters wanted him to do.
Marcos was neither a revolutionary nor a visionary. He was, plain and simply, a preserver of the old status quo.
His very act, which he cloaked in propaganda terms as "Bagong Lipunan", was never revolutionary. It was purely reactionary. Bagong Lipunan was just a thesis meant to show that things were different, when in truth and in fact, the same society was actively promoted and supported by Marcos.
The greatest sin that Marcos did to the Filipino People was he gave them the impression that he was the Moses of his people, when, in truth and in fact, he became their Bane.
It is not only Marcos that erred in those times.
I accuse those people who ascended into power after Marcos' ouster. They are worse than the Dictator because they pretended to be better than him when, in truth and in fact, they are nothing more than poor copycats.
These people perpetuated the system that the people condemned. They pretended to be promoters of democracy, when it was plutocracy that they truly pursued.
These people promoted a bourgeois capitalist system that further worsened both the economic and social spheres.
Instead of arresting the decline of Philippine society, things got worse because the root causes of our misery remain deeply imbedded within the very structure which we adopted from the West.
Now, more than ever, we need a change of the system. We need a surgical solution. We need a total overhaul of this system which oppresses the Filipino People.
The Filipino People is ripe for a revolution that will promote a totally different system, a system that equalizes opportunities, and gives every single individual his due.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Martial Law declaration of Mrs. Arroyo an abuse of Executive Power
What are the conditions existing that justifies the declaration of martial rule? Under Section 18 of Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution, it is clearly stated that:
In the case of Maguindanao, Mrs. Arroyo clearly exceeded her exercise of powers.
Proclamation 1959 is not a judicious exercise of emergency powers granted to her by the Constitution because at the time she so declared it, there was no existing condition of lawless violence, insurrection nor rebellion (or coup d'etat) in Maguindanao. The Armed Forces of the Philippines has already neutralized the Ampatuans. The principal masterminds of the brutal Maguindanao massacre have already been arrested, put under custody and their private armies disarmed and neutralized.
What is quite evident with this declaration is this--the discovery of a huge cache of arms and ammo bearing the markings of the DND-PNP inside the Ampatuan mansions. NPR already wrote about this in previous posts and is the first to report of this huge cache of arms in most of these mansions inside the Ampatuan compound.
Likewise, even government itself, in its numerous press statements, says that the situation has been placed under control, following the previous declaration of a state of emergency.
Clearly, Proclamation 1959 is NOT really meant to contain a condition or situation in Maguindanao. Rather, the purpose was simply to use it as a threat, to impress upon the political enemies of Mrs. Arroyo that she is still in control and that she still can use this power against those who will undermine her position as President.
Remember that a few days prior to this, Metro Manila was placed under "blue alert" by the Armed Forces despite the absence of a military intelligence report even indicating that the capital was under serious threat. "Blue alerts" are only availed of, when there is a basis, like an imminent attack from the enemies of the state.
That is the main goal. And what is the tactical objective?
The tactical objective is simply obfuscate the discovery of these huge cache of government assets. E.O. 1959 is meant to protect the Powers-That-Be that allowed such assets to be given to a warlord such as the Ampatuans.
It is meant to silence the Ampatuans and those who know why such a huge pile of government arms and ammos fell into the hands of a brutal warlord clan.
It is likewise a pre-emptive move aimed at confusing the situation and diverting attention from the seriousness of this issue.
Clearly, this discovery is more than enough proof that high government and military officials are involved in cuddling and taking care of the Ampatuans. This is prima facie evidence that DND, AFP and PNP officials colluded with the Ampatuans and supplied them with arms and ammos.
And this definitely happened right under the noses of former DND secretary Gilbert "Gibo" Teodoro who earlier claimed in his statements that his administration was "clean" and "devoid of corruption". How will Teodoro explain this now?
Three things:
1. Proclamation 1959 is more of a political act than a direct and judicious response to a condition of lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
2. Proclamation 1959 is a clear abuse of powers granted to Mrs. Arroyo under the 1987 Constitution. The action was meant to suppress adverse public opinion arising from the discovery of a huge cache of arms and ammonition by the AFP inside the compound of a political ally.
3. Proclamation 1959 should be condemned because it is a diversionary tactic at the expense of a Power than should not be trifled with.
The message is clear---Proclamation 1959 is Mrs. Arroyo's way of declaring war against her political enemies; a threat meant to impress her enemies that this power still resides with her and will be used to perpetuate and protect her and her gang's interests whenever threatened.
To those who want change--be prepared for the long haul. This diminutive megalomaniac will not stop. Mrs. Arroyo will not fade away peacefully. She will not give up power that easily.
And the elections, clearly, is threatened by the very actions of this megalomaniac.
Democracy is threatened.
"The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law."The provision is very clear and under our jurisdiction, its construction should also be clear---martial law can only be declared if there is an existing condition of "lawless violence, invasion or rebellion." The Supreme Court in many instances, particularly those rulings when Mrs. Arroyo declared a "state of emergency" in Metro Manila at the height of anti-Arroyo rallies, says that such conditions should be "existing" rather than pre-emptory or "perceived".
In the case of Maguindanao, Mrs. Arroyo clearly exceeded her exercise of powers.
Proclamation 1959 is not a judicious exercise of emergency powers granted to her by the Constitution because at the time she so declared it, there was no existing condition of lawless violence, insurrection nor rebellion (or coup d'etat) in Maguindanao. The Armed Forces of the Philippines has already neutralized the Ampatuans. The principal masterminds of the brutal Maguindanao massacre have already been arrested, put under custody and their private armies disarmed and neutralized.
What is quite evident with this declaration is this--the discovery of a huge cache of arms and ammo bearing the markings of the DND-PNP inside the Ampatuan mansions. NPR already wrote about this in previous posts and is the first to report of this huge cache of arms in most of these mansions inside the Ampatuan compound.
Likewise, even government itself, in its numerous press statements, says that the situation has been placed under control, following the previous declaration of a state of emergency.
Clearly, Proclamation 1959 is NOT really meant to contain a condition or situation in Maguindanao. Rather, the purpose was simply to use it as a threat, to impress upon the political enemies of Mrs. Arroyo that she is still in control and that she still can use this power against those who will undermine her position as President.
Remember that a few days prior to this, Metro Manila was placed under "blue alert" by the Armed Forces despite the absence of a military intelligence report even indicating that the capital was under serious threat. "Blue alerts" are only availed of, when there is a basis, like an imminent attack from the enemies of the state.
That is the main goal. And what is the tactical objective?
The tactical objective is simply obfuscate the discovery of these huge cache of government assets. E.O. 1959 is meant to protect the Powers-That-Be that allowed such assets to be given to a warlord such as the Ampatuans.
It is meant to silence the Ampatuans and those who know why such a huge pile of government arms and ammos fell into the hands of a brutal warlord clan.
It is likewise a pre-emptive move aimed at confusing the situation and diverting attention from the seriousness of this issue.
Clearly, this discovery is more than enough proof that high government and military officials are involved in cuddling and taking care of the Ampatuans. This is prima facie evidence that DND, AFP and PNP officials colluded with the Ampatuans and supplied them with arms and ammos.
And this definitely happened right under the noses of former DND secretary Gilbert "Gibo" Teodoro who earlier claimed in his statements that his administration was "clean" and "devoid of corruption". How will Teodoro explain this now?
Three things:
1. Proclamation 1959 is more of a political act than a direct and judicious response to a condition of lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
2. Proclamation 1959 is a clear abuse of powers granted to Mrs. Arroyo under the 1987 Constitution. The action was meant to suppress adverse public opinion arising from the discovery of a huge cache of arms and ammonition by the AFP inside the compound of a political ally.
3. Proclamation 1959 should be condemned because it is a diversionary tactic at the expense of a Power than should not be trifled with.
The message is clear---Proclamation 1959 is Mrs. Arroyo's way of declaring war against her political enemies; a threat meant to impress her enemies that this power still resides with her and will be used to perpetuate and protect her and her gang's interests whenever threatened.
To those who want change--be prepared for the long haul. This diminutive megalomaniac will not stop. Mrs. Arroyo will not fade away peacefully. She will not give up power that easily.
And the elections, clearly, is threatened by the very actions of this megalomaniac.
Democracy is threatened.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Charter Change And Martial Rule
Is it possible under the present circumstances, for Mrs. Gloria Arroyo to mix charter change with martial rule, as alleged by former ally Jose de Venecia Jr.?
Speaking before members of the diplomatic community at the Manila Polo Club, De Venecia gave diplomats a veritable security and political briefing on what's really happening. He confirmed earlier entries in NPR about the plan of Arroyo to call for a State of Emergency should Speaker Prospero Nograles Jr. fails to sustain enough support to convene Congress into a Constituent Assembly.
As what I wrote here several weeks ago, August 6 is the date where all of these things would come to a head, or a week after Mrs. Arroyo's SONA. If Congress convene itself as an assembly, then, several scenarios are likely to happen:
1. Bombings in Mindanao would increase, with the administration again pointing to extremist groups as the ones responsible for the attacks. These bombings are diversionary tactics, meant to delude the public and ensure that another option remains available should public outrage comes to a decisive and explosive level.
2. Increased military and police checkpoints which they plan to set up a few days or the week of the SONA. This will be extended after the SONA, as they expect opposition to mount huge rallies shortly after the convening of Congress into a Constituent Assembly.
Now, what if Congress fails to convene itself into a Constituent Assembly?
1. Either a self-coup or a declaration of martial rule. A self-coup is more likely since failure to convene will surely diminish rallies against the administration. This coup would be mounted by several so-called reformists who will occupy several key government installations. They will then announce order and institute a revolutionary government with Arroyo as the head.
Arroyo will scrap the Constitution, convene a small group of constitutional experts and start the constitutional review. Shortly after that, they plan to institute preparations for parliamentary elections.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Crackdown on cha-cha
National security adviser Norberto Gonzales and ISAFP Chief Gen. Rey Prestoza and even AFP spokesperson, Lt. Col. Romeo Brawner Jr. were all one in saying that the military is not the ones behind the spate of bombings that happened in Metro Manila this week. They all say there's a destabilization plot, allegedly being committed by two groups and funded by an opposition politician. While PNP chief Jesus Versoza denied that there is a destabilization plot on-going.
Which is which? Who to believe? The chief of the PNP saying there's no destab, or these three gentlemen?
To help you, my dear readers and friends judge who to believe, let's go back to the very words Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo told reporters last June 21.
During her working visit in Japan, Mrs. Arroyo said that she's not out to scrap the elections. What she's after, Mrs. Arroyo said, is to reform the political system through constitutional amendments. She categorically stated her desire for charter change through "political and economic reforms". “What I have always said, and it was part of my campaign platform in 2004, is that the political system needs to be reformed,” the President told reporters covering her working visit in Japan.
Mrs. Arroyo said the political and economic reforms she wished to implement would entirely depend on the efforts of her allies and “ultimately on the people of the Philippines.”
Okey, two things---charter change is on and the elections. Its clear that Mrs. Arroyo will push ahead with amending the constitution prior to the elections, so expect the fight against cha-cha to really be messy and protracted, since it just spewed out of Mrs. Arroyo's mouth that she's routing not just for economic reform (as what Speaker Nograles only wants) but "political reforms" as well. Meaning, Mrs. Arroyo is really gunning for a shift to parliamentary, a desperate move, says her detractors, to prolong her stay in power.
So, come July 27, allies of the President will not just change economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution--they will also try to change political provisions--a clear violation of the "gentleman's agreement" made by administration allies in the Lower House.
Okey. So the elections are on. What kind? Partial automation, the palace said. So, what would happen is Comelec will have a joint venture (or whatever that arrangement is) with Smartmatic only to partially automate the elections. But, why is the palace and Comelec insiders preparing for partial instead of full elections?
Because they are anticipating that the elections will fail anyway. Why do I say that?
Note the statement made by Norberto Gonzales regarding a "revolutionary government" setup with Mrs. Arroyo as head. These ideologues and hawks within the palace are deliberately sabotaging the elections to create the necessary scenarios for justifying an action like this.
Why float an idea if these palace men have'nt thought about it and considered it within the confines of Malacanang?
That said, going back to the original question---who to believe? I believe Verzosa when he says that there's no destabilization because he knows very well that its government who's doing those scare tactics and government troops are no destabilizers. Why do it in the first place?
To precipitate a crackdown of anti cha-cha group leaders, to instill fear in them enroute to July 27. Its not martial law that this government intends to achieve ultimately, although its a sweeter, if we are to believe what Executive secretary Eduardo Ermita said previously, but merely to derail the organizing efforts being undertaken by anti charter change agents.
Which is which? Who to believe? The chief of the PNP saying there's no destab, or these three gentlemen?
To help you, my dear readers and friends judge who to believe, let's go back to the very words Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo told reporters last June 21.
During her working visit in Japan, Mrs. Arroyo said that she's not out to scrap the elections. What she's after, Mrs. Arroyo said, is to reform the political system through constitutional amendments. She categorically stated her desire for charter change through "political and economic reforms". “What I have always said, and it was part of my campaign platform in 2004, is that the political system needs to be reformed,” the President told reporters covering her working visit in Japan.
Mrs. Arroyo said the political and economic reforms she wished to implement would entirely depend on the efforts of her allies and “ultimately on the people of the Philippines.”
Okey, two things---charter change is on and the elections. Its clear that Mrs. Arroyo will push ahead with amending the constitution prior to the elections, so expect the fight against cha-cha to really be messy and protracted, since it just spewed out of Mrs. Arroyo's mouth that she's routing not just for economic reform (as what Speaker Nograles only wants) but "political reforms" as well. Meaning, Mrs. Arroyo is really gunning for a shift to parliamentary, a desperate move, says her detractors, to prolong her stay in power.
So, come July 27, allies of the President will not just change economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution--they will also try to change political provisions--a clear violation of the "gentleman's agreement" made by administration allies in the Lower House.
Okey. So the elections are on. What kind? Partial automation, the palace said. So, what would happen is Comelec will have a joint venture (or whatever that arrangement is) with Smartmatic only to partially automate the elections. But, why is the palace and Comelec insiders preparing for partial instead of full elections?
Because they are anticipating that the elections will fail anyway. Why do I say that?
Note the statement made by Norberto Gonzales regarding a "revolutionary government" setup with Mrs. Arroyo as head. These ideologues and hawks within the palace are deliberately sabotaging the elections to create the necessary scenarios for justifying an action like this.
Why float an idea if these palace men have'nt thought about it and considered it within the confines of Malacanang?
That said, going back to the original question---who to believe? I believe Verzosa when he says that there's no destabilization because he knows very well that its government who's doing those scare tactics and government troops are no destabilizers. Why do it in the first place?
To precipitate a crackdown of anti cha-cha group leaders, to instill fear in them enroute to July 27. Its not martial law that this government intends to achieve ultimately, although its a sweeter, if we are to believe what Executive secretary Eduardo Ermita said previously, but merely to derail the organizing efforts being undertaken by anti charter change agents.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Writ of Habeas Corpus and Why we must act now
There are only two legal prerequisites in the declaration of martial law in the Philippines. Under Section 18, Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution, the President as Commander-in-Chief may declare martial rule only if either of these two conditions exists: a state of rebellion or invasion.
Let's not discuss about invasion since this does not and will not happen in the future. Let's just discuss about rebellion. What are the legal prerequisites that define the existence of rebellion?
Philippine jurisprudence defines rebellion or insurrection as an act:
Now, then, I would not delve into how the Supreme Court defines or construes the crime of rebellion, for the law is clear on that. What I would like to expose here is the immediate effects of such a declaration. In our jurisdiction, the most obvious effects of a declaration of martial law is the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
Under our laws, a suspension of the writ or questioning the rationale behind the suspension is at most a political question (Barcelon vs. Baker; Montenegro vs. Castaneda). President Elpidio Quirino did just that in suspending the writ of persons in Central Luzon to quell a rebellion there. The Supreme Court did nothing to intervene.
However, in Lansang vs. Garcia, the Supreme Court declared that it has the power to determine whether the decision to suspend has factual basis. This is a reversal from the two earlier decisions in which the Court practically said that the president has the sole and ultimate discretion.
Writs are automatically suspended when the government declares martial rule, being, as what the Supreme Court said in Aquino vs. Enrile, that "it has the right to protect itself against those who want to destroy it." Having said so, the Supreme Court again reverted back to the Barcelon and Montenegro decisions when it said that the rationale behind such suspensions are solely exercised by the Chief Executive in Garcia-Padilla vs. Enrile.
Yet, when the Marcos regime ceased to exist, the SC again went back to its ruling in Lansang and declared that it has the power to determine whether the suspension is, in fact, based on factual and existing conditions of rebellion.
Effects of the declaration of martial rule
The immediate effects is the suspension of the writ. The second effect is the calling out of the Armed Forces to quell the rebellion by arresting and prosecuting those who are taking part or took part in the event. In People vs. Hernandez, the SC says that people arrested during a rebellion may not be charged with any other offense except the crime of rebellion. For example, if a rebel killed a police officer at the height of the rebellion, he may only be charged with the crime of rebellion and not complexed with homicide or murder (this is the prevailing doctrine, revisited in Enrile vs. Salazar case)
The writ of Habeas Corpus, says US Constitutional expert Paul Mishkin, is a writ of liberty, whereby it allows a person to exercise the fullest freedoms and rights guaranteed under a democratic state. No one, not even government, may arrest and detain a person , except if that person is committing or has committed a violation of the penal statutes of that state.
Therefore, a suspension of such writ allows the State to impose measures against its citizens. It may conduct arrests, occupy private businesses and momentarily suspend the workings and processes of democracy. All rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights are suspended. Unlike the 1935 Constitution, however, civil courts remain in operation even during the period of martial rule.
Under the 1987 Constitution, the suspension may only be within a period of sixty days. However, during this period, any citizen may go to the Supreme Court and question its validity. The Chief Executive is also required and specifically directed by the Constitution to report to Congress within 48 hours the factual basis for such a declaration. Congress, in turn, votes whether to sustain such a declaration or quash it.
The fears of people
What the people fear about this is the reality that this present administration exercises its powers in the most tyrannical and in wanton fashion that defies reason. There is a factual basis for such fears.
In Presidential Proclamation 1107 when Mrs. Arroyo availed of such powers to quell the purported "Oakwood Mutiny" rebellion, she did it without considering the real construction of Section 18, Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution. Clearly, the rebuke she got from the Supreme Court in David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo says much about her tendency to do things in a reckless fashion that violates the very democratic principles of our society. PP 1107 says much on how this administration resorts to legal perfidy or constitutional innocuousness to justify its stay in power.
In the case of the Oakwood mutiny, the very name of the event speaks for itself--it was a mutiny allegedly committed by a group of soldiers. What these idealistic officers occupied was a posh hotel in Makati. They never occupied a naval facility nor a military camp. They never really called for people to rebel. It was just a glorified or bizarre way of doing a press con.
There was even no "armed public uprising" in the first place, since those who only inside Oakwood had arms. I did not see any other person bearing arms outside Oakwood, except maybe a few soldiers guarding the hotel.
So then, when Executive secretary Eduardo Ermita threatened to declare martial law in case protestors against House Resolution 1109, was it just a hollow threat or a real one?
If, for example, protestors carry sticks and brooms during Mrs. Arroyo's SONA, would that justify a declaration of martial rule? No.
If, say, they shout invectives against Mrs. Arroyo and mass themselves infront of that brass statue in EDSA, would that, be interpreted as rebellion? Again, no.
If, say, Patricio Mangubat and all cyber activists really went out of their perfumed rooms and flood the streets and join those thousands of warm bodies calling for the removal of Mrs. Arroyo from power, would that be rebellion? Of course, no.
That's different when we protest not just by using our laptops or shout ourselves out hoarse but we also carry machetes or guns or armalites or we have bombs or grenades in our hands, that would really be rebellion. And, of course, we'll surely and like lambs, meekly line up for jail.
But, of course, like I said, this administration is different from the others, not just in the way they steal our monies, but also in the way they bend the rules and the law in order to get what they want.
I would not be surprised that, if they see a Bayan Muna flag bearer or a Sanlakas member holding a stick pole, Ermita and Mrs. Arroyo would team up and proclaim martial rule the minute they see these people in the streets. Ermita would say that stick is a bladed weapon and a threat to democracy.
Or, when they see the face of Satur or Teddy Casino in their TV screens down that dark garrisoned monitoring basement of theirs inside the palace, Ermita and Mrs. Arroyo, along with her fat hubby, immediately think of declaring martial rule and call out the armed forces. Those words of Satur really hurt. And these conos don't want nothing of this.
More vigilance and More Actions
So, now, what I'm trying to say is simply this---let's heed what Senator Kiko Pangilinan urged us to do---remain vigilant and even heighten our campaign against this despotic regime.
Don't follow other people's call for sobriety. No. You don't act calmly when you're being killed or you're being raped. No.
I hate to say this but all the more do we fight this government, a menace of democracy. You just don't retire to your rooms and just type your anger away---you need to join those mass of people out there in the streets and protest how things are getting fucked up and how this government shows irreverence on the state of things.
These people who call for sobriety, of the Gandhian way of showing dissent, are clearly mistaken. Or they're simply members of the conscience block of the elite. As I wrote some entries ago, these people are stooges of the elite class. They don't want an authentic revolution. They simply want us to toe the line and not change things up because that would surely affect their economic status.
All the more you kick, you protest, you shout, you holler, you type those word bombs and you hold those stick and poles ever tighter. "No cause is left but the most ancient of all, the one, in fact, that from the beginning of our history has determined the very existence of politics, the cause of freedom versus tyranny" says Hannah Arendt.
"The objector and the rebel who raises his voice against what he believes to be the injustice of the present and the wrongs of the past is the one who hunches the world along" adds Clarence S. Darrow.
And what Ralph Waldo Emerson clearly wrote a century ago, " Every actual state is corrupt. Good men must not obey laws too well."
And I say, let's push forward so that tyrants will never ever think of ever occupying that Palace and never ever dream of destroying the very institutions of governance and never ever tinker with our democracy.
Let's not discuss about invasion since this does not and will not happen in the future. Let's just discuss about rebellion. What are the legal prerequisites that define the existence of rebellion?
Philippine jurisprudence defines rebellion or insurrection as an act:
There must be two conditions present for rebellion to exists: an armed public uprising must be present and the purpose must be of removing allegiance from the government "or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, whooly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.""committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for
the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the
territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land,
naval or other armed forces, depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature,
wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives. (As amended by R.A.
6968)." (Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, ACT NO.
3815," AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE AND OTHER PENAL LAWS")
Now, then, I would not delve into how the Supreme Court defines or construes the crime of rebellion, for the law is clear on that. What I would like to expose here is the immediate effects of such a declaration. In our jurisdiction, the most obvious effects of a declaration of martial law is the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
Under our laws, a suspension of the writ or questioning the rationale behind the suspension is at most a political question (Barcelon vs. Baker; Montenegro vs. Castaneda). President Elpidio Quirino did just that in suspending the writ of persons in Central Luzon to quell a rebellion there. The Supreme Court did nothing to intervene.
However, in Lansang vs. Garcia, the Supreme Court declared that it has the power to determine whether the decision to suspend has factual basis. This is a reversal from the two earlier decisions in which the Court practically said that the president has the sole and ultimate discretion.
Writs are automatically suspended when the government declares martial rule, being, as what the Supreme Court said in Aquino vs. Enrile, that "it has the right to protect itself against those who want to destroy it." Having said so, the Supreme Court again reverted back to the Barcelon and Montenegro decisions when it said that the rationale behind such suspensions are solely exercised by the Chief Executive in Garcia-Padilla vs. Enrile.
Yet, when the Marcos regime ceased to exist, the SC again went back to its ruling in Lansang and declared that it has the power to determine whether the suspension is, in fact, based on factual and existing conditions of rebellion.
Effects of the declaration of martial rule
The immediate effects is the suspension of the writ. The second effect is the calling out of the Armed Forces to quell the rebellion by arresting and prosecuting those who are taking part or took part in the event. In People vs. Hernandez, the SC says that people arrested during a rebellion may not be charged with any other offense except the crime of rebellion. For example, if a rebel killed a police officer at the height of the rebellion, he may only be charged with the crime of rebellion and not complexed with homicide or murder (this is the prevailing doctrine, revisited in Enrile vs. Salazar case)
The writ of Habeas Corpus, says US Constitutional expert Paul Mishkin, is a writ of liberty, whereby it allows a person to exercise the fullest freedoms and rights guaranteed under a democratic state. No one, not even government, may arrest and detain a person , except if that person is committing or has committed a violation of the penal statutes of that state.
Therefore, a suspension of such writ allows the State to impose measures against its citizens. It may conduct arrests, occupy private businesses and momentarily suspend the workings and processes of democracy. All rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights are suspended. Unlike the 1935 Constitution, however, civil courts remain in operation even during the period of martial rule.
Under the 1987 Constitution, the suspension may only be within a period of sixty days. However, during this period, any citizen may go to the Supreme Court and question its validity. The Chief Executive is also required and specifically directed by the Constitution to report to Congress within 48 hours the factual basis for such a declaration. Congress, in turn, votes whether to sustain such a declaration or quash it.
The fears of people
What the people fear about this is the reality that this present administration exercises its powers in the most tyrannical and in wanton fashion that defies reason. There is a factual basis for such fears.
In Presidential Proclamation 1107 when Mrs. Arroyo availed of such powers to quell the purported "Oakwood Mutiny" rebellion, she did it without considering the real construction of Section 18, Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution. Clearly, the rebuke she got from the Supreme Court in David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo says much about her tendency to do things in a reckless fashion that violates the very democratic principles of our society. PP 1107 says much on how this administration resorts to legal perfidy or constitutional innocuousness to justify its stay in power.
In the case of the Oakwood mutiny, the very name of the event speaks for itself--it was a mutiny allegedly committed by a group of soldiers. What these idealistic officers occupied was a posh hotel in Makati. They never occupied a naval facility nor a military camp. They never really called for people to rebel. It was just a glorified or bizarre way of doing a press con.
There was even no "armed public uprising" in the first place, since those who only inside Oakwood had arms. I did not see any other person bearing arms outside Oakwood, except maybe a few soldiers guarding the hotel.
So then, when Executive secretary Eduardo Ermita threatened to declare martial law in case protestors against House Resolution 1109, was it just a hollow threat or a real one?
If, for example, protestors carry sticks and brooms during Mrs. Arroyo's SONA, would that justify a declaration of martial rule? No.
If, say, they shout invectives against Mrs. Arroyo and mass themselves infront of that brass statue in EDSA, would that, be interpreted as rebellion? Again, no.
If, say, Patricio Mangubat and all cyber activists really went out of their perfumed rooms and flood the streets and join those thousands of warm bodies calling for the removal of Mrs. Arroyo from power, would that be rebellion? Of course, no.
That's different when we protest not just by using our laptops or shout ourselves out hoarse but we also carry machetes or guns or armalites or we have bombs or grenades in our hands, that would really be rebellion. And, of course, we'll surely and like lambs, meekly line up for jail.
But, of course, like I said, this administration is different from the others, not just in the way they steal our monies, but also in the way they bend the rules and the law in order to get what they want.
I would not be surprised that, if they see a Bayan Muna flag bearer or a Sanlakas member holding a stick pole, Ermita and Mrs. Arroyo would team up and proclaim martial rule the minute they see these people in the streets. Ermita would say that stick is a bladed weapon and a threat to democracy.
Or, when they see the face of Satur or Teddy Casino in their TV screens down that dark garrisoned monitoring basement of theirs inside the palace, Ermita and Mrs. Arroyo, along with her fat hubby, immediately think of declaring martial rule and call out the armed forces. Those words of Satur really hurt. And these conos don't want nothing of this.
More vigilance and More Actions
So, now, what I'm trying to say is simply this---let's heed what Senator Kiko Pangilinan urged us to do---remain vigilant and even heighten our campaign against this despotic regime.
Don't follow other people's call for sobriety. No. You don't act calmly when you're being killed or you're being raped. No.
I hate to say this but all the more do we fight this government, a menace of democracy. You just don't retire to your rooms and just type your anger away---you need to join those mass of people out there in the streets and protest how things are getting fucked up and how this government shows irreverence on the state of things.
These people who call for sobriety, of the Gandhian way of showing dissent, are clearly mistaken. Or they're simply members of the conscience block of the elite. As I wrote some entries ago, these people are stooges of the elite class. They don't want an authentic revolution. They simply want us to toe the line and not change things up because that would surely affect their economic status.
All the more you kick, you protest, you shout, you holler, you type those word bombs and you hold those stick and poles ever tighter. "No cause is left but the most ancient of all, the one, in fact, that from the beginning of our history has determined the very existence of politics, the cause of freedom versus tyranny" says Hannah Arendt.
"The objector and the rebel who raises his voice against what he believes to be the injustice of the present and the wrongs of the past is the one who hunches the world along" adds Clarence S. Darrow.
And what Ralph Waldo Emerson clearly wrote a century ago, " Every actual state is corrupt. Good men must not obey laws too well."
And I say, let's push forward so that tyrants will never ever think of ever occupying that Palace and never ever dream of destroying the very institutions of governance and never ever tinker with our democracy.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
No-El and August
Why do I always hear rumours of "No-El" and people whisper that something "big" will happen this August? What's with August anyway?
Despite this Resolution that passed thru the rigorous House two days ago, I don't believe that elections will not push thru as planned. The administration already agreed on a merger with Lakas CMD and it would be foolish not to go ahead with the elections. These politicians know that tampering with the elections would lead to widespread violence. People are waiting for the transition. Everyone's itching to know what future lies in a post-Gloria era. Yet, to tempt fate and pursue a term extension is foolhardy at best.
Again, I don't know what will happen come August. Congress has until June 3, that's next week, to tempt fate by pushing thru with that Resolution. They also have until that time to extend CARP. Farmers are clashing with police in a daily fashion lately. And House members, especially Cong. Edcel Lagman already gave assurances that the House will extend CARP. Yet, these legislators just want farmers to wait for their turn.
Tomorrow, 28 May 2009, two significant events will happen. LAKAS-KAMPI CMD will have a dinner meeting and wagging tongues say, Noli de Castro will grace the event, alongside with, DILG secretary Ronnie Puno. Puno already threw his hat unto the vice-presidential ring and the architect of the Sulu hotel operations that catapulted Ramos to power is very much assured of winning. Puno will pit himself against Senator Kiko Pangilinan and possibly, Jinggoy Estrada from the Opposition. If Puno wins against Kiko or Jinggoy, there's something wrong with the system.
Administration allies, I heard, is confident of a win, given that COMELEC will soon award the computerization project to the rag-tag rich team of Cezar Quiambao and Ernest Villareal. These two graft geniuses are known associates of First Gentleman Mike Arroyo and surely, they'll go whatever the Arroyo family wants.
Going back to my original query, I just don't know what's on August that people whisper something sinister about it. All I know about August is that's the month when Ninoy got shot and the month when Marcos decided to go ahead with September 12---a date that went down in history as the most infamous day that blackened Philippine history.
Will this administration do ala-Marcos and decide to tempt fate, throw every caution in the wind and satisfy its whim? Possibly. This administration has survived so many attempts that it has adjusted everytime. It became stronger. It became bolder. And what's so unique about all of these things---it became wiser.
After June 3, it's possible that some sipsip Congressmen will tempt fate and go on with charter change. They cannot declare an extension since it's prohibited by the 1987 Constitution but the president can. Or, possibly there will be something serious that affects security that would prod Mrs. Arroyo to declare martial rule?
But, all these are far-fetched and simply too ridiculous even to think. No-El? Cha-cha? Crap!
Despite this Resolution that passed thru the rigorous House two days ago, I don't believe that elections will not push thru as planned. The administration already agreed on a merger with Lakas CMD and it would be foolish not to go ahead with the elections. These politicians know that tampering with the elections would lead to widespread violence. People are waiting for the transition. Everyone's itching to know what future lies in a post-Gloria era. Yet, to tempt fate and pursue a term extension is foolhardy at best.
Again, I don't know what will happen come August. Congress has until June 3, that's next week, to tempt fate by pushing thru with that Resolution. They also have until that time to extend CARP. Farmers are clashing with police in a daily fashion lately. And House members, especially Cong. Edcel Lagman already gave assurances that the House will extend CARP. Yet, these legislators just want farmers to wait for their turn.
Tomorrow, 28 May 2009, two significant events will happen. LAKAS-KAMPI CMD will have a dinner meeting and wagging tongues say, Noli de Castro will grace the event, alongside with, DILG secretary Ronnie Puno. Puno already threw his hat unto the vice-presidential ring and the architect of the Sulu hotel operations that catapulted Ramos to power is very much assured of winning. Puno will pit himself against Senator Kiko Pangilinan and possibly, Jinggoy Estrada from the Opposition. If Puno wins against Kiko or Jinggoy, there's something wrong with the system.
Administration allies, I heard, is confident of a win, given that COMELEC will soon award the computerization project to the rag-tag rich team of Cezar Quiambao and Ernest Villareal. These two graft geniuses are known associates of First Gentleman Mike Arroyo and surely, they'll go whatever the Arroyo family wants.
Going back to my original query, I just don't know what's on August that people whisper something sinister about it. All I know about August is that's the month when Ninoy got shot and the month when Marcos decided to go ahead with September 12---a date that went down in history as the most infamous day that blackened Philippine history.
Will this administration do ala-Marcos and decide to tempt fate, throw every caution in the wind and satisfy its whim? Possibly. This administration has survived so many attempts that it has adjusted everytime. It became stronger. It became bolder. And what's so unique about all of these things---it became wiser.
After June 3, it's possible that some sipsip Congressmen will tempt fate and go on with charter change. They cannot declare an extension since it's prohibited by the 1987 Constitution but the president can. Or, possibly there will be something serious that affects security that would prod Mrs. Arroyo to declare martial rule?
But, all these are far-fetched and simply too ridiculous even to think. No-El? Cha-cha? Crap!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)