Mob rule in disguise

In the February 15th issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, columnist Conrado de Quiros outrightly dismissed as frivolous the growing trepidation that the ongoing Corona impeachment trial in the Senate might bring about a constitutional crisis. “What crisis?” de Quiros wrote.

His argument is very simple. Public opinion cannot be ignored, de Quiros said, because it’s the people who are the foundation of government. The people “are the air the three branches of government breathe.” He concluded his column by saying that “there is no constitutional crisis where there is People Power.”

De Quiros further wrote: “What makes the omission, or exclusion, of the people from all this talk of a constitutional crisis particularly glaring is that we are at the heart of the People Power months. Edsa II took place in January and Edsa I in February. February 25 particularly blazes forth like a huge neon sign in that respect, the date that most embodies or symbolizes People Power. It’s time we flocked once again to the Edsa Shrine, or to Padre Faura, or to the Senate Building, and made our sentiments known. And made our will known. And made our power known.”

Catholic nuns dare soldiers to lay down arms, EDSA Revolution 1986.
Reposted  from Le Montage Photo Courtesy of  princesse_laya.

While de Quiros is right about the people being the true source of political power, he forgot, however, to mention that we also now live in a so-called representative democracy, where the people have transferred their right or power to those they elected through the electoral process. That in making their decisions, our representatives must follow the letter of the law and obey the Constitution, without of course disregarding the weight of public opinion. So if our elected leaders follow the law, then they are presumed to be acting on behalf of the people. And if they don’t, a constitutional crisis is triggered that could lead to a public rebuke of the incumbent government or stir up some militant segments of society to break the impasse by violent means. This is all possible, but de Quiros is invoking people power as the ultimate and only solution, which is messy and chaotic.

What has people power, Philippine-style, really accomplished?

EDSA I brought down a dictatorship and re-installed democratic institutions of government, including the three branches of government we have now, and of course the continuation of oligarchic control of government. EDSA II deposed a corrupt president, but replaced him with a more corrupt one, and of course, perpetuated the rule of oligarchs.

The lives of Filipinos did not change much after both EDSA I and EDSA II. The poor remain stuck in poverty, the economy as whole did not take off and catch up with the economies around us, and corrupt politicians continued to run amuck.

And what will another EDSA People Power accomplish as envisioned by de Quiros? It will destroy the democratic institutions of government that were restored by EDSA I, resulting to the return of authoritarianism where the executive branch or the President and his cabal of advisers will yield uncontested political power. In short, President Noynoy Aquino will tear down everything his mother Cory helped build.

We all know what happened during the martial law regime—civil and political liberties were suppressed, and the oligarchy consolidated its grip on political power and control of the economy. Conrado de Quiros understands this fully well. As a young and brilliant writer, he was a member of the Malacanang think-tank that propped up the New Society under Ferdinand Marcos. He was one of those aspiring writers and artists shepherded by Malacanang to serve the aims of the Marcos repressive government.

Now, de Quiros is at the service of a dictator in the making. In calling for another EDSA uprising, de Quiros is invoking the mob to get out on the streets and push the country into the precipice of another black period in its history.

Tanks roll in during EDSA 1986. Reposted from Le Montage .Photo Courtesy of
princesse_laya. Click link to view "The 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution
is a Big Hoax," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL0lM3abUQE&feature=fvst

Read the following transcript of a conversation recorded on the Internet on February 2010, before the presidential election that catapulted Noynoy Aquino to the presidency (loosely translated from Pilipino):

“You might be eating your own words later. Conrado de Quiros vehemently criticized the Aquinos after the Hacienda incident (referring to the Hacienda Luisita massacre in 2004). But after Cory's death, he was the first to support Noynoy. That’s because it’s easy to criticize even though you lack information. The problem is, you don’t even know the entire story.” [Reply to Prison Break]

“Who knows what Noynoy promised de Quiros when they talked to each other. Maybe he would become press secretary when Noynoy is elected president. You find out the truth in your story which has no value. There’s nothing free anymore today, there is an exchange for de Quiros’ support. It appears you never learned anything.” [Reply to Ellen (Tordesillas) is a moron].

Does it still surprise you why de Quiros is now an avid Noynoy Aquino supporter?

One-hundred-and-seventy-five years ago, in 1837 to be exact, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, in his address before the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, strongly expressed his opposition to mob rule, over the issue of the perpetuation of American institutions.

In his speech, Lincoln reminded his audience that if there was any danger to the established institutions, it would not come from abroad. Lincoln said, “If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

But Lincoln was more worried about the prevailing disregard for law in the country during that time. He was referring to the “growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions in lieu of the sober judgment of courts, and the worse-than-savage mobs for the executive ministers of justice.” Lincoln, of course, was referring to accounts of outrages committed by mobs from New England to Louisiana which were spreading like wildfire throughout the land.

To dramatize the danger of mobs in many of the states, Lincoln said “the lawless in spirit are encouraged to become lawless in practice; and having been used to no restraint but dread of punishment, they thus become absolutely unrestrained. Having ever regarded government as their deadliest bane, they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations, and pray for nothing so much as its total annihilation.”

Because of the growing strength of the mobs, Lincoln admonished that “the strongest bulwark of any government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed—I mean the attachment of the people.”

How do we fortify against the rule of the mob? Lincoln’s answer is simple.

He said: “Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity swear by the blood of the Revolution never to violate in the least particular the laws of the country, and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of ’76 did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and laws let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honour. Let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the charter of his own and his children’s liberty. Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap; let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in primers, spelling books, and in almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay of all sexes and tongues and colours and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.”

Abraham Lincoln was echoing the genuine voice of the people, not the foolish idea of a mobocracy as Conrado de Quiros seems to evoke by challenging us to revive the spirit of EDSA I and EDSA II as their anniversaries are bearing upon us.

Whatever the outcome of the Corona impeachment trial, the Filipino people should respect the decision of the senator-judges. Should the Senate finally come to grips with reality that the ongoing impeachment trial is useless and will not bring any good to the nation and decide to put a stop to the charade, so be it. Let no one, including President Noynoy Aquino flaunt the threat of another EDSA revolt every time he senses defeat of his needless assault on the constitutional foundations of our government.

Extremely annoying and incredibly juvenile

My apologies to Jonathan Safran Foer for putting the pun on his book title.

William Howard Taft—yes, that same person for whom a long stretch of avenue in Manila was named for—was appointed Governor-General of the Philippines in 1900 by U.S. President William McKinley. Taft was elected U.S. President himself in 1909.

William Howard Taft, first U.S. Governor General of the Philippines and 27th US
President. Photo courtesy of  Life.Liberty. Taft told President McKinley that "our
little brown brothers" would need "fifty or one hundred years" of close supervision
 "to develop anything resembling Anglo-Saxon political principles and skills."

In 1902, Taft wrote a book, Political Parties in the Philippines, where he examined the historical development of Philippine political parties and analyzed the level of political maturity of the Filipinos. In his book, Taft said that Filipino politicians have yet to learn the idea of individual liberty and the practical elements of a popular government.

The Philippine Commission during Taft’s time in the Philippines, which was the precursor of the Philippine Senate, recommended the establishment of a popular assembly, to be composed of affluent Filipino politicians, to serve as a training ground for self-government. This assembly became the Congress of the Philippines and the Jones Act of 1916 created the Senate replacing the Philippine Commission.

As oligarchic as the membership of Congress was in its early years, today’s Congress is not that all different. While learning the rudiments of self-government from American tutelage which the country had to master well during the years of independence until now, one would expect that a representative democracy would have flourished, that the country is now able to draw upon all classes in Philippine society in forming the country’s legislative body. Nothing has changed.

It was partly the fault of the American colonial rulers. The Americans did not change the Filipino social structure. They merely imposed a political system that allowed the existing social structure to gain political power. Taft’s idea of letting society’s affluent members constitute Congress resulted in the formation and circulation of elites that perpetuate their hold on political offices.

Brian Fegan, an American anthropologist described the Filipino family in his book An Anarchy of Families, as the most enduring political unit in Philippine society. The transfer of power among family members is considered normal and natural in order to preserve political continuity. Political competition is seen as a rivalry between families, whose members invest a permanent right to political office once they have claimed it.

Just look at the composition of today’s Philippine Congress. You see father and son, or mother and daughter, one a senator and the other a member of the lower house. Or siblings sitting together as senators. Or children of their once-famous or infamous father or mother who also sat in Congress before them. Point a finger to an individual member of Congress and you can trace his or her family connections: the Aquino-Cojuangco family, the Macapagal-Arroyos, the Ponce Enriles, the Rectos, the Osmenas, the Marcoses, the Cayetanos, the Angaras—almost everyone is related to each other, whether as a sibling, a parent or a distant relative.

Current members of the Philippne Senate sitting as a trial court for the impeachment
of  Supreme Court Justice Renato Corona. Please click link to view "Pulitikos:  The
Philippine Oligarchy System,"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlIsjUnoVLg

Whatever happened to Taft’s prescription one century later—did we mature as a country or have we gone bananas? We should blame him for the oligarchic system of government we have now.

The current impeachment trial of the Supreme Court Chief Justice before the Senate doesn’t speak well about our development and maturity as a government. We have a Constitution which grants the Senate the power to try government officials for high crimes and misdemeanours. Acting as a trial court, the Senate is higher than the Supreme Court but the law is quite clear on what are impeachable offences. Some pundits or columnists of the Philippine Daily Inquirer and other media subservient to Malacanang, or even independent bloggers, they all don’t know what they’re writing about. It’s not about how sharp your pen is or how good you string a couple of sentences into beautiful paragraphs. Impeachment, although a political process, is equally about what the law is. No amount of spin and counter-spin in the realm of public opinion can change the law and the legal nature of the impeachment process.

But there is value and purpose in the impeachment process as a constitutional device for as long as it is not regarded as purely ad hominem in nature. Unlike what is happening in the Philippine Senate today when a person like the Supreme Court Justice is being vilified both by his prosecutors and by those in the public media.

If we follow American impeachment proceedings as our guide, such proceedings often start as a general inquiry and develop into impeachment as soon as the facts are disclosed which would then generate public demand for stronger action. In the case of Corona’s impeachment, the articles of impeachment were hastily drafted and the prosecution soon fast-tracked into a fishing expedition for evidence to prove the allegations against the Chief Justice, such as issuing subpoenas right and left even for persons who should not be there, like the accused’s fellow justices or financial and bank records that are protected from disclosure by law.

The motive for Corona’s impeachment is suspect. We have a president stimulated by vendetta against an earlier Supreme Court decision that was detrimental to his family’s feudal claims to lands that didn’t belong to them. Or, perhaps because the Chief Justice refused to go along with a sharing arrangement of the high court’s leadership with another fellow justice. Arguably, while some of the alleged offences by the Chief Justice could be against the law if only they could be proved, they are most likely not in the nature of impeachable crimes as envisaged under the Constitution.

Prof. Raoul Berger , a conservative Harvard legal historian and Supreme Court scholar, wrote in the 1974 issue of Harper’s Magazine an article entitled “Impeachment: An Instrument of Regeneration,” where he argued that Americans were too restrained about the use of the impeachment process. In Berger’s view, impeachment was an essential Constitutional safeguard – an instrument for regeneration for protection of our liberties and our constitutional system.

During the waning years of the Bush administration, there were talks that went around Washington about the possibility of impeaching President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney for serious transgressions of the Constitution. Bush, Cheney and the Justice Department were the focus of complaints about their abuse of authority with respect to the war in Iraq, the treatment of war prisoners, the use of torture, and the firing of eight U.S. attorneys in 2007 known as the “Gonzales Eight.” The political condition would have been ripe for impeachment as an institutional remedy as Prof. Berger had foreseen. But impeachment was taken off the table as many Americans believed it would be viewed as overzealous partisanship, and they could strike havoc at the polls whoever was running as president for either the Republican or Democratic Party. Such was a situation ideal for impeachment as an institutional remedy, as it would make a clear statement about abuse of power.

Does the Corona impeachment fall under Berger’s argument that its proper use is as a constitutional restorative? Obviously not. But the failure to use impeachment, however, could also have deleterious consequences. It could mean acceptance of the alleged felonies of the Chief Justice as permissible by any means, legally or by any form of justification.

On the contrary, however, the current Corona impeachment is destroying the delicate and careful balance between legislature, executive and judiciary as envisaged in our Constitution. We have a sitting president who appears to be interested in undoing this system of checks and balance. By the looks of it, the executive could possibly triumph as the paramount power, if this whole charade is allowed to play out. Impeachment may be a painful process, but we should consider whether our Constitution and the legal order are worth saving.

The Corona impeachment is stalling the more important legislative agenda of the Senate, and of the lower house, too, if all the 188 members who signed the articles of impeachment have nothing to do but watch the progress of the trial. It has reached a point of being a nuisance, a clumsy betrayal of our childishness and immaturity as a nation who’s refusing to grow up. Merely because we have a president who appears to be more interested in playing duck games rather than facing the serious tasks of his office.