Duterte’s Agenda—Degrade Democratic Institutions, Increase Authoritarian Control

DUTERTE’S AGENDA—DEGRADE DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS,

INCREASE AUTHORITARIAN CONTROL

DANGEROUS DOCTRINE

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:07 AM February 26, 2019

For the second year running, and while the midterm elections are about to be held, Mindanao will continue to be under military rule after the Supreme Court voted 9-4 to uphold the third extension of martial law until the end of 2019.

In greenlighting the extension, the highest court of the land has shown how little it regards its power under the Constitution to “review… the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.”

…Chief Justice Lucas Bersamin provided a glimpse of the majority thinking in the tribunal when he declared in a public function that government reports on violence in Mindanao, as basis for the new extension, need not be accurate.

You heard that right: “Whether that information is true or not is irrelevant… accuracy is not the question here,” said Bersamin. “The question is, what is the information that the President acted upon… When you note some inconsistencies or weaknesses, that is not sufficient to undo the determination of the President.”

The inaccuracies Bersamin couldn’t be troubled with were unearthed by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, who diligently dug into the military reports Malacañang had submitted. During the oral arguments on four petitions challenging the martial law extension, Caguioa questioned the many inconsistencies in the records, such as several violent incidents with no perpetrators but which were later attributed to the Abu Sayyaf; other incidents attributed to both communist rebels and the Abu Sayyaf; and at least three instances when Abu Sayyaf members killed each other. “How does that support the contention that rebellion persists?” Caguioa asked.

The petitioners, led by former election commissioner Christian Monsod and Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, pointed out that there was no actual rebellion happening in Mindanao, contrary to government assertions. The situation has in fact improved, said Monsod, after the Marawi siege ended in October 2017, and barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections were even held in May 2018.

…In Bersamin’s view, however, Malacañang’s reports can be lies for all they’re worth—but all that matters is whether the President believed them, and acted on that basis. In which case, the chief executive’s action is then rendered essentially above scrutiny, reproach or review.

Wait a minute: Isn’t that stance basically an abandonment of the constitutional duty of the Court precisely to look into “the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law…” — in other words, to check whether the rationale the administration cited was true or not?

…Checking the chief executive’s hand is precisely the duty of the other branches of government. But the Court’s blithe imprimatur on baseless martial law extensions risks an “undue expansion and possible abuse of the vital presidential power,” warned Monsod, one of the very framers of the 1987 Constitution. “It sets a dangerous precedent of normalizing an emergency power that is only brought about by the law of absolute necessity.”

Bersamin’s disturbing doctrine of uncritical deference to the so-called wisdom of the President amounts to dangerously normalizing not only perpetual martial law, but also the notion of strongman rule.

Mr. Duterte could resort to the same Marcosian reign of abuse and duplicity, but, as things stand, the court of last resort has decided it will not inconvenience him in any way with questions about truth and fact.

Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/119796/dangerous-doctrine#ixzz5oc14IYbP

‘DESPERATE MOVE’ TO VILIFY RURAL MISSIONARIES

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:01 AM March 04, 2019

We, the Rural Missionaries of the Philippines, a national organization of women and men religious, priests, and lay, condemn the tagging of our organization as a “communist front,” this time through the complaints filed by National Security Council deputy director general Vicente Agdamag to the United Nations (UN).

The report, submitted to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva on Feb. 21, alleged that we are trafficking tribal children.

This is such a desperate move to vilify us, for we have been effective in raising people’s awareness on the plight and demands of our farmers, fisherfolk and indigenous peoples, and in exposing the grave abuses of human rights in the country. It only reflects the cowardice of those behind this move.

We condemn in the highest terms this slander of our organization. We reiterate that our commitment to serve the rural poor moves us to provide programs for them, including literacy and numeracy drives for “lumad” children, livelihood programs, relief and rehabilitation, and training and education for rural communities.

Agdamag’s move is definitely alarming, as it can be used to justify going after rural missionaries, priests, sisters, and lay workers. We urge our fellow Christians to condemn these preposterous accusations, and to echo the call to end the attack against rural poor and peace advocates

Human rights defenders in our country are in such a perilous situation. We must be ever vigilant and stand together with the Filipino people in exposing and resisting the state’s attacks against those who criticize it.

SR. ELENITA BELARDO, RGS National Coordinator, Rural Missionaries of the Philippines rmpnational1969@gmail.com

Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/119914/desperate-move-to-vilify-rural-missionaries#ixzz5rkZhKzXV

Red-tagging is one of the heavy bludgeons Duterte wields—crudely, we might add—to advance his fascist agenda. Targets of red-tagging include human rights advocates and workers, Roman Catholic religious and clergy undertaking apostolic work among the poor, and the political left legally engaged in opposition and dissent against the administration but not involved in illegal or armed resistance.

ATTACK ON THE PRESS: AN ALARMING DEVELOPMENT

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:10 AM March 07, 2019

The arrest of Rappler CEO Maria Ressa is an alarming development — unmistakable proof of how embattled press freedom is nowadays. No wonder even the international community has expressed its condemnation of this brazen attack on the press.

When a vital institution such as the press is undermined, it is necessary that Filipinos stand up against this for the sake of the greater good.

Given the ordeal currently being experienced by opposition senators and staunch Duterte critics Senators Leila de Lima and Antonio Trillanes IV, and the ouster of Maria Lourdes Sereno as Chief Justice, is it safe to declare that the arrest of Ressa is something the government had something to do with?

There is no direct evidence that shows the regime’s culpability in the arrest of Ressa, but it is worth noting that the President himself recently stated that Rappler is a propagator of fake news.

It is ridiculous on many levels that such an accusation should come from an administration that is indisputably associated with fake news.

If a high-profile individual like Ressa could suffer for her beliefs, then what fate is in store for ordinary, nameless citizens who are also determined to speak their own minds?

To assail the press is to assail the people, for the former not only upholds our right to information, but also works for the stability of our freedom of expression.

The press is indispensable in every State, and certainly in every democracy. As some pundits put it, to be well informed is the greatest power one can achieve. Unless we have the facts, our wrong decisions arising from misinformation can adversely affect our society and country.

There is deep indignation in seeing what seems to be a dark, menacing cloud cast on the press at present; that one must possess obedience rather than independence in order to attain survival — political or social — under the current dispensation; that merely doing your duty of fighting for what you believe is right may render you criminally liable; that those who are in positions of power could easily get away with their misdeeds, distort the truth and neutralize dissent by legal vengeance.

But decriminalizing libel is not the key to immunizing the press from persecution. The problem is not the libel laws, but rather the justice system that is rife with flaws and loopholes. Insuring the well-being of the press can be accomplished not through the elimination of libel, but the repair of the larger justice system. …

IAN CARLO L. ARAGON, iancarloaragon@gmail.com

Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/119977/attack-on-the-press-an-alarming-development#ixzz5rulAH0HJ

Every Filipino is a stakeholder in anything that affects the Philippines. Lahat ng Pinoy nagbabayad ng buwis, therefore they have the right to call out the government and ask for accountability. After all, pera ng taumbayan ang sinusuweldo ninyo.

Margee, @margeedo

Philippine Daily Inquirer

April 26, 2019

BYE, ICC

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:12 AM March 17, 2019

In a 15-page statement released on March 14, 2018, serving notice that the Philippines was withdrawing from the ICC, Mr. Duterte insisted that the mass deaths from his drug war did not constitute any of the crimes falling under the ICC’s jurisdiction: “The deaths resulting in the process of making lawful arrests arising from the violent resistance of the suspects that endangered the lives of the police officers cannot be said to have been committed against a national, ethical, racial or religious group.”

He also accused UN Special Rapporteur Agnes Callamard and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, two of the staunchest critics of the drug war, of “readily show[ing] international bias.”

Callamard had decried the rampant drug-related extrajudicial killings that are now estimated to number more than 20,000; in true Duterte fashion, the President’s response was: “Kung imbestigahin mo ako, sampalin kita (if you’re going to investigate me, I will slap you).”

Human rights and religious groups, as well as families of alleged EJK victims, have submitted at least four communications against Mr. Duterte before the ICC.

Despite the administration’s insistence otherwise, the Court maintains that it retains jurisdiction over crimes that were committed while the Philippines was still an ICC member — that means incidents between August 2011 and March 2019 — and can continue its preliminary probe into the Duterte administration’s conduct covering this period even after the Philippine withdrawal has taken effect.

Even as the President and his advisers may imagine he can successfully escape accountability by yanking the country away from the ICC’s gaze, it’s ordinary Filipinos that may find themselves at the losing end of this cynical and self-serving political maneuver.

Last year, lawyer Barry Gutierrez argued before the Supreme Court that the ICC provides a “safety mechanism” for Filipinos who want to seek redress for their grievances, especially when local courts are “unable or unwilling to actually provide justice to victims of these serious crimes enumerated in the ICC.”

Another legal expert, senatorial candidate Chel Diokno who founded the De La Salle University College of Law, warned that the withdrawal virtually gives the Duterte administration carte blanche impunity, as it “deprives… citizens of one remedy to grave and extraordinary crimes… This is removal of the protection of ordinary Filipinos against government abuse. This will cause injustice and lack of accountability.”

The withdrawal may impact the country in other ways. The Philippines, for instance, can no longer make China accountable for crimes of aggression in the West Philippine Sea once it’s out of the ICC, pointed out Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio.

Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/120178/bye-icc#ixzz5toLRvE4y

THE SOLUTION: BUILD DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS

Let’s be constructive. The solution to the anti-developmental political authoritarianism that obtains in the Philippines, which tends to abuse the enormous powers of the state in order to plunder the nation’s resources for personal gain, operating in a manner akin to a Mafia syndicate, is to build democratic institutions.

To cite the pointed analysis of Heydarian:

WE NEED A STRONG STATE, NOT STRONGMEN (1 of 2)

By: Richard Heydarian - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:08 AM October 02, 2018

...what is a “strong” state? The modern state has two key elements: (1) autonomy from rapacious elites and pressure groups that place private interest over public welfare; and (2) capacity to ensure law and order as well as deliver basic goods and services for the society. A strong state, therefore, is autonomous and bureaucratically capable.

Prior to the advent of the modern state, today’s leading industrialized nations, from Germany to France and Japan, were largely feudal, impoverished societies under the command of absolutist monarchs.

The modern state, however, changed everything, because it brought about what sociologist Michael Mann calls “infrastructural power,” namely the uniform application of law as well as the widespread availability of public goods, as opposed to “tyrannical power,” which is the ability of a ruler to oppress and pillage in his/her constituency.

As former US president Barack Obama rightly told his African counterparts in 2009, the continent “doesn’t need strongmen, [but] it needs strong institutions.” He could have said exactly the same thing about the Philippines, which never lacked for strongmen and populists who brought more misery than progress, but is yet to possess a strong state.

Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/116481/need-strong-state-not-strongmen-1#ixzz5TO1ESDeS

WE NEED A STRONG STATE, NOT STRONGMEN (2 of 2)
By: Richard Heydarian - @inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:08 AM October 30, 2018

One of the greatest legacies of the Singaporean leader was to build on the strong bureaucratic tradition inherited from Confucianism as well as British imperial rule. Recruitment to government was largely performance-based and meritocratic, while corruption was minimized through a combination of competitive compensation and a tough “zero tolerance” policy.

Lee was successful as a leader largely because he both leveraged and strengthened a world-class bureaucracy that ensured rule of law, instituted optimal trade and industrial policies, and ably took care of the basic welfare of ordinary citizens. Singapore was lucky for not only having an enlightened leader, albeit authoritarian at times, but also a “strong state” that was more meritocratic and welfare-oriented than repressive and tyrannical.

And this is precisely why countries such as the Philippines have failed, because we either have had corrupt tyrannical leaders or struggling reformists bereft of a strong state. Absent capable and competent bureaucratic institutions, even the best leaders are constrained in bringing about transformative change.

In his memoirs, Lee praised the immense talent and work ethic of ordinary Filipinos, but lamented how the failures of the Philippines were because “[s]omething was missing, a gel to hold society together.” The “missing gel” was precisely the absence of a strong state that would not only hold the country together, but also steer it in a common direction toward a prosperous future.

Institutional legacy is one reason. As Stanley Karnow observed in his magisterial book “In Our Image,” “Americans neglected to establish an effective and impartial administration in the Philippines,” which forced ordinary Filipinos to place their hopes in “[corrupt] politicians instead of [a competent] bureaucracy…a practice that fostered patronage and corruption.”

Finally, one shouldn’t forget the Singaporean leader’s lamentations about corrupt tyrants in his neighborhood. In “From Third World to First,” Lee criticized the “soft, forgiving culture” of the Filipinos, since “[o]nly in the Philippines could a leader like Ferdinand Marcos, who pillaged his country for over twenty years, still be considered for a national burial.”

Lee’s Singapore shouldn’t be taken as an inspiration for authoritarianism, which has miserably failed in most countries with only few exceptions, but instead as a modern and effective bureaucracy that serves as the foundation of a functioning democracy.

rheydarian@inquirer.com.ph

Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/117099/we-need-a-strong-state-not-a-strongman-2#ixzz5lVapaJKu