Country of crabs

 

 

The city of Baltimore is world-famous for its crab houses, not to be mistaken for pubic lice or “crabs,” a common form of STD. Freshly-steamed blue crabs have been very much a part of Baltimore tradition.

 

But in the Philippines, the kind of crustacean that is the most well known is the two-legged variety that lives on land – Filipinos with a crab mentality.

Click link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keezDubex_w to view 100% Pinoy Crab Mentality.

Only a few weeks before the coming May 13 elections, putative topnotcher of the senatorial candidates and re-electionist Senator Loren Legarda was accused of not disclosing her condo apartment in New York’s tony Park Avenue in her SALN (Statement of Assets and Liabilities Networth). The accusation triggered off potential comparisons with former Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona whose downfall from the highest court in the land was caused by inaccuracies in SALN reporting. Senator Legarda must have felt the tremors from the ground up there in the stratosphere where she has been coasting along as the top senatorial candidate since day one.

 

Senator Legarda was charged at the Office of the Ombudsman with five counts each of graft and non-declaration of a property in the United States in her statement of assets, liabilities and net worth from 2007 to 2012 as required by law.

 

Crab mentality arises from a situation where crabs in a bucket find it difficult to escape because the other crabs grab at each other and prevent the other from escaping. The analogy is extended to human behaviour where some members of a group pull down any member who has achieved success over the others, out of envy, jealousy or competitive feelings.

 

While popularly ascribed to Filipinos, this particular mentality is not endemic to Filipinos. It’s a universal individual and social dynamic, ubiquitous in almost every other culture. Among Germans, for instance, there is an attitude called schadenfreude which means taking pleasure in the misfortune of others and can be understood as an outgrowth of envy or jealousy.

 

When Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz was asked if Republican candidate for president Mitt Romney should release more of his tax returns during the last US elections, he categorically answered no, implying that those who wanted to see them were just jealous of Romney’s wealth and success. “He’s the kind of guy I want to be president. He actually knows how to turn the economy around,” Chaffetz added.

 

So this crab mentality of pulling down someone because of his or her advantages is a common thing. Most people are naturally insecure or unsatisfied with where they are in life, so they take the opportunity to try to hold down others. We see neighbours defaming neighbours, reporters inventing stories about celebrities, businessmen cutting corners to beat their competitors, and professionals dislodging fellow professionals, which are all common varieties of crab mentality.

 

In politics, crab mentality is intuitively germane in the dynamics of rivalry or competition. Politicians by nature attack their opponents for their failure to deliver their electoral promises of honesty, good government, jobs growth or better social programs, or simply for the purpose of putting them down in the eyes of the electorate. They pull down others who don’t follow their line. It is because of this incessant tug of war and mudslinging between politicians that there is a perceived general failure in government.

 

It’s rather disingenuous, however, to hear allegations from the opposition party that crab mentality is driving a member or some members of the administration’s roster candidates (Team PNoy) to prevent Senator Legarda from finishing on top of the senatorial contest. “Somebody wants to be number one ahead of her. Is that the kind of people you want to be elected in the Senate?” asked senatorial candidate Richard Gordon of the United Nationalist Alliance (UNA).

 

“It is saddening that Loren’s fellow Liberal Party candidate is the one initiating the black propaganda against her. Behind the ‘daang matuwid’ (straight path) is a mix of personalities who put ambitions over principles,” UNA secretary general and campaign manager Toby Tiangco noted.

 

Talking about ethical principles is something very strange to hear from politicians. They better check the reflection on their personal mirrors first before they open their mouths for they could also be sorely lacking in ethical scruples.

 

Yet, it is more refreshing to listen to Nancy Binay’s candour when she expressed disapproval of what Senator Legarda’s fellow candidate in Team PNoy was doing to pull her down. “We are helping each other to improve our chances. In the last three months of campaigning together, we are becoming closer to each other and we are already like sisters and brothers and one family. Our relationship as friends and as UNA candidates is becoming more strong as the elections near,” Nancy Binay said.

 

Very comforting and honest words from a candidate who seems not to know why she’s running for senator in the first place. But this is closer to reality, to the kind of remarks expected from contestants in the American Idol singing contest – praising the closeness and camaraderie they have developed among them, and the expression of collective angst that one of them could be thrown out because one of them is secretly pulling another down. Doesn’t Ms. Binay sound like a contestant in the American Idol show?

 

Instead of crying crab mentality, spare the blameless crabs of their complicity. If a candidate has a spotless record as a politician, what then is she afraid of attacks against her? Don’t blame it to our cultural predilection to pull down those who are ahead. Tell the truth and it shall make you free.

 

Ms. Binay and Mr. Gordon are both running for senators on account of their parents’ political legacy. At least Mr. Gordon has proven himself in the past. In the case of Ms. Binay, it’s all about name recognition. All she carries is her father’s name. She’s as empty as a vacuum, who is willing to engage in a debate with the other candidates, but only after the election is over.

 

Both Ms. Binay and Mr. Gordon are scions of famous political families, just like Bam Aquino, Jun and Mitos Magsaysay, Jack Enrile, Allan Cayetano, Sonny Angara, Tingting Cojuangco, JV Ejercito, Cynthia Villar, Juan Miguel Zubiri, Koko Pimentel, Jamby Madrigal and others who could all trace their political fortune to their ancestors and are all banking on the magical appeal of their names. Even Senator Legarda hails from a political family, her husband was former governor of Batangas and member of a political clan.

 

If we want to involve the crabs in this election, then let’s emulate them: we might as well pull down all these candidates and elect instead people on their true merits and political principles they stand on. There are a handful of aspirants among the 33 senatorial candidates who are not from known political families and are running on political platforms worthy of the people’s support. Teddy Casiño stands tall among these candidates for his unwavering crusade for nationalism, democracy, and the rights and welfare of the people at all times. But the major political parties, including the media, are portraying Casiño as a leftist because of his advocacy of the rights of workers, farmers, and the poor and oppressed. As if electing one candidate from the left will shake the entire Congress and bring the government down. At least, in electing Casiño, there would be one member of the senate who represents a new perspective, a fresh point of view instead of the usual exchange of senseless political tirades and one-upmanship that have typically characterized Congress.

Makabayan Platform. Click link to view Miting de Avanse ng Makabayan,
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTFCTwlv7J0&feature=youtube_gdata

But because of crab mentality again, this time by those on the conservative right fearing of a Teddy Casiño-led uprising of workers and peasants, they’re going to shoot down Casiño’s candidacy. They will keep portraying Casiño as the leftist arsonist, who will burn Congress to the ground if elected. If necessary, they will push politics back to the Hobbesian state of nature where political envy and jealousy are the primary passions of the day.

 

Forever under the spell of crab mentality, Congress has become a big bucket of crabs, each member trying to outdo the other while some members keep pulling down the others. It’s a brutal race to the top, and victory always belongs to the one whose political genealogy is rooted to a powerful family dynasty. Just look at our past and present leaders, Estrada, Arroyo and Aquino – all family dynasties, and their minions are still growing.

 

Let’s rally all the crabs in the country to put these family dynasties down for good. At least, this way we can make use of the crab mentality we are known worldwide in dismantling a significant obstacle to the democratization of the political process. Like the popular crabs of our culture, we will claw them back and stop them from reaching the pinnacle of political power.

Heart of the matter

At the very heart of the articles of impeachment against Chief Justice Renato Corona is his alleged betrayal of trust under the Philippine Constitution. After reducing the articles of impeachment from 8 to 3, the prosecution is relying on Article 2 to convict Corona for his failure to disclose his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (or SALN in short) as required under the Constitution. In other words, Corona as alleged, had not been truthful and even concealed certain assets from his annual wealth declarations.

The obligation of a public officer or employee to declare his or her assets, liabilities and net worth is enshrined in the 1987 Constitution under Section 17, Article XI. Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, provides for the enabling legislation that requires public officials and employees to declare their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests, including those of their spouses and of unmarried children under 18 years of age living in their households.

 Corona's alleged U.S. property as  new evidence? Photo courtesy of Yahoo!Southeast
Asia Newsroom. Click link to view "Impeach Corona, Bawiin ang Hacienda, Sigaw ng
Yellow Mob," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69gzCMqrWUo&feature=related

Under the Constitution, only the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office through impeachment for culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.

Note that in order to find a violation of the Constitution as an impeachable offence, the violation must be culpable, a term in criminal law that refers to the blameworthiness of the accused. Failure by a public officer named in the Constitution who can be impeached by not disclosing his or her SALN may not necessarily be culpable as it is more in the nature of a regulatory or administrative offence, but nevertheless prosecutable under the law. It must be proved, therefore, that Corona had a culpable state of mind if he were to be impeached for not declaring an accurate or honest SALN, i.e., that he intended to commit the offence which implies a very high standard of proof.

Let us review the impeachment trial so far.

There is no allegation in the articles of impeachment that the Chief Justice did not declare his wealth as required under the Constitution. What the prosecution impugns is Corona’s false declaration, under-declaration, and non-declaration of assets in his SALN. As the impeachment trial went on, the glaring problem with the prosecution’s allegation appears to be their lack of evidence to prove Corona violated the law. All that the prosecution managed was to embark on a fishing expedition for evidence that will prove their allegation. Corona’s defence lawyers, however, were able to rebut with contradicting evidence or proof that the properties allegedly owned by Corona were either not his or were obtained lawfully.

In the end, the prosecution was able to tarnish the image of the Chief Justice in the eyes of the public as being dishonest and not truthful about his assets by implying that some of Corona’s properties might have been irregularly obtained. But that will not stand in any court of law or before the Senator-judges who must consider the evidence or absence of culpability.

Lately for instance, Raissa Robles, a professional blogger disclosed in her blog that the Chief Justice has properties in the United States which were not reported by Corona in his SALN. No due diligence was exercised by Ms. Robles, like conducting a simple title search, but she was able to poke the public mind that Corona might be hiding some U.S. properties from his assets. Corona, however, was quick to respond that those properties alleged by Ms. Robles are actually owned by his daughters who are residents and working in the United States. Besides, the SALN law (RA 6713) excludes reporting properties of unmarried children who are 18 years of age or over and who are not living in the household of a public official.

Again, this kind of gathering evidence and reporting it on the Internet and the media does not prove Corona’s culpability. It only excites public speculation that Corona cannot be trusted. It continues to paint Corona as guilty in the public mind even before the end of the trial, but not through the legal process where the Chief Justice just like anyone of us is also entitled to the equal protection of the law.

Let us consider an article written by one of the most rabid of supporters the Aquino government has in the media. Conrado de Quiros, in his regular column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, criticized the argument that the failure to submit a SALN is not an impeachable offence as idiotic. He wrote that this offence is “not only an impeachable offence” but also a “jail-able offence.”

Mr. de Quiros may be right from a common sense point of view. But the law as it is, is not merely about common sense. The law also considers the rights of the person accused and due process. One doesn’t simply rant in public about a public official’s alleged offence and ask the public to hang him. We need people of sober minds to weigh and judge the evidence against a person accused of a high crime, not the lunacy of those who are willing to sell their souls at any price in exchange for peddling to the public the government’s official line, no matter how incredulous.

So, where does the Chief Justice’s alleged false declaration of his SALN fall if it is not a culpable violation of the Constitution? Could it be graft and corruption? For how can a public official even as high as the Chief Justice afford to buy expensive properties from his meagre salary alone? Certainly, there is an implication of irregularity that could point to graft and corruption. Only corrupt government officials can buy those properties alleged owned by the Coronas, unless the Chief Justice himself was also corrupt.

But then the law cannot be based on speculations or innuendoes. An accusation of graft and corruption, which was never pleaded by the prosecution in the articles of impeachment, must be proved by incontrovertible evidence.

What are left as alternative impeachable crimes would be other high crimes or betrayal of public trust. But who determines whether a false SALN is a high crime or betrayal of public trust?

In associating “treason, bribery, graft and corruption” with “other high crimes or betrayal of public trust,” the framers of the 1987 Constitution must have in their minds the political nature of these offences, that these offences are against the state. To borrow from the conservative Harvard professor Raoul Berger, they are political crimes as distinguished from crimes against person, such as murder. They are also punishable by Congress, whereas courts punish crimes or lesser private wrongs.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution removed the word “misdemeanours” and substituted it with “betrayal of public trust.” We can surmise that the reason is to preserve “high crimes” to impeachment cases and leave misdemeanours to the ordinary courts.

Considering the political nature of these impeachable offences, perhaps there is no need for facts or evidence to impeach the Chief Justice. All that is needed is votes. Except that this would defy all requirements of due process, which must be accorded to the Chief Justice no less than the lowliest felon. It is also not necessarily true, therefore, that “other high crimes or betrayal of public trust” could be whatever the Senate acting as an impeachment court considers.

But the real problem with the impeachment of Chief Justice Corona lies in the haste the articles of impeachment were prepared. A verified complaint for impeachment was never filed in the first place in accordance with the Constitution. The articles of impeachment were literally shoved down the throats of 188 members of Congress and they were asked to sign under duress. If they didn’t sign, they would never get a share of government pork.

Under the American legal tradition where we borrowed the concept of impeachment of public officers, an impeachment may not necessarily start its inquiry under the impeachment rules. A preliminary or general inquiry may be the best way to start an impeachment until the facts as they are disclosed become developed or strong enough to proceed with the impeachment. At the same time, a public demand for stronger action is generated.

But the Senate struck down the request of Corona’s defence team for a preliminary inquiry and decided right away to proceed with the impeachment despite the glaring deficiencies in the articles of impeachment. The government led by President Noynoy Aquino then launched a media blitz to influence public opinion against the Chief Justice, similar to a trial by publicity. Everything that ensued once the impeachment trial started became a living nightmare, not only to the defence team but also to the prosecution and the government as well.

One thing for sure after the verdict is handed down, the Corona impeachment will make us respect the law even less than we did before. That is not very comforting to Congress and to the judiciary which we originally thought are the last bulwark of the people against onslaughts to the Constitution by a president who believes personal vendetta takes priority over others, including respect for the rule of law.