In today’s Inquirer editorial, the paper thinks the government’s trying to politicize the price of gas; this reflects the attitude of people like Norwegian Would who think we’ve moved forward since the days of subsidized oil:
It is now close to a decade since we finally smashed the old illusion that oil price subsidies were pro-poor, perpetuated for a long time by the middle and upper class leaders of so-called ‘people’s organizations.’ Note that at that time nominal prices were below 20 dollars per barrel. Now the high is about five times. But we don’t hear of any outrageous manifestos that the increase is caused by the local ruling class in conspiracy with foreign capitalists, do we?
Despite its moderate optimism, the Inquirer’s Sunday editorial proved prophetic, in a sense, as it warned of the consequences if politicking intruded into the Batasan bombing investigation too early. The news reported Ermita clears Salapuddin on Batasan blast which led to backpedaling on his part, today: Palace executive says he did not clear Salapuddin. But the damage has been done: as Senator Genaro Magsaysay famously said, “less talk, less mistake.” The dangers of higher-ups saying something were obvious to begin with.
Last Thursday I had a chance to run into Rep. Roilo Golez whose observations, however, made sense to me. He said that if assassination was the aim, then the opportunity presents itself in two places: where the target lives, and where the target works (incidentally, on Wahab Akbar, see Torn and Frayed and Sidetrip with Howie Severino).
Add to this, he said, the fact that we don’t have a suicide bomber culture, and that includes killers intent on killing themselves, too. So an assassin would make saving his own hide a high priority. This limits the opportunities, Golez said. Between home and work, the target’s convoy would make assassination difficult. You’d expect home to be well secured. But work -well, in the case of Akbar, the opportunity was there, particularly as he seemed to have suffered from a false sense of security while at the House, leaving by the same entrance like clockwork. An assassin, Golez observed, would run the risk of being gunned down after shooting his target, unless he was capable of making the 300 meter dash to the main entrance before anyone noticed what had happened. This means, if a getaway is important to the assassin, a bomb would be best. The other possibility, that the bombing was undertaken by a rogue element within the military, is a possibility Golez’s very uncomfortable with. No such inhibitions from Inner Sanctum.
Still, Amando Doronila says Blaming Abus was convenient for probers while Uniffors remains puzzled by the use of a bomb to do something small arms fire could have accomplished.
Scriptorium says the bombing raises three questions (read the whole entry, particularly his belief our society isn’t about to fall apart, just yet):
First, how could they think to do it? For while the legislators are not deemed epitomes of integrity–and in recent years, in fact, the Lower House has seemed lower still, a very expensive rubber stamp fit for a Queen–, they are legislators nonetheless, anointed with the ill-used but still real dignity of representing the nation in its districts and sectors; and an attack on them remains, by constitutional fiction, an attack on us. The bombing was therefore not only an attempt at mass murder–or perhaps at simple murder with multiple collateral casualties–but a national lese majeste, an brazen act of political sacrilege that makes us shudder for its confidence and contempt.
This takes us to the 2nd concern: Who then is safe? If our legislators with their security force and phalanxes of bodyguards can be attacked at the very center of their power, then what of us–who, when we ride the trains and enter the malls, have only private guards to keep us unharmed, searching our bags for bombs they would hardly recognize, shielding us more from comfort than from danger? The Glorietta “gas explosion” was bad enough; and even as we continue our daily routines, we know that we’ve gone back to the second lowest step of Maslow’s hierarchy (if, that is, we ever left it, or ever ascended from the first). One can hardly blame the tourists and investors for staying away, for they have a choice. We have none, and must go as before, though perhaps adding a prayer for safety to our morning rituals.
The 3rd concern proceeds from the foregoing: What next? Was this but the first ledge of a descending cascade of violence, unleashed by maybe Maoists, Islamists, Arroyoists, or random thugs? Will our government seize on it as an excuse to formally impose martial law, which it has proven all-too-willing to do for the most intangible reasons? In this light, though the intentions behind the attack are still uncertain, and its economic and social results remain to be seen, the needed policy response is already clear: For the sake of the nation and its people, the violence must be halted now, and its real perpetrators must be identified and prosecuted as soon as possible–but the means used must not, through excess, threaten to destroy the very ideals they seek to protect. More anon, perhaps, when more facts come to light.
More questions are raised by Postcard Headlines. But Mon Casiple asks the real question on everyone’s mind: are they Coincidences or real political moves? He’s a bit ambiguous on this score:
At the moment, the political situation points to the imperative on the president to make a decisive decision soon on which path she will take to ensure her own survival beyond 2010. The name of the game right now is called “transition management.”
She does not have much time left for her to decide (and make this public) since all the options require long and difficult preparations. All the interested political actors–within and outside her ruling coalition, local as well as foreign–know this. All are exerting pressure to push their own agenda and–the jackpot–to be the one to manage the transition.
Of course, GMA may not really leave the scene–witness her pronouncements on a charter change initiative. There are some in her coalition who wants to use the charter change to extend her term in power (and their own) and they are moving heaven and civil society to make this happen.
However, the chances for this are slim, unless her administration scatters the opposition and unleashes white terror on civil society. The desperate temptation to declare martial law or a state of emergency stem from the reality of a people’s resistance to charter change under GMA’s tutelage.
It is a coincidence that dramatic events such as the Batasan bombing, the Dalaig assassination, or the Glorietta incident occur one after the other in this moment of political conjuncture. Still-unfolding events will show whether these are real coincidences or planned moves in a game of political strategy.
Meanwhile, bureaucratic intramurals: Battle looms over control of Justice.
Overseas, see Malaysia Demos: Sound and Fury, Signifying Little in Asia Sentinel.
My column for today is The future’s bright (and thanks to the San Jose-Recoletos student publications editor-in-chief, who blogs at ~~peAceOuS viCioUs~~ for her kind words). On a Visayas-related note, see Boljoon Dig part 1 and Boljoon Dig part 2, in CAFFiend, on some remarkable archeological diggings there. Interesting entries, on provincial history, in Kanlaon and A Nagueño in the Blogosphere. Interesting notes, too, in The Magnificent Atty. Perez, referring to the Iloilo-Cebu connection.
Elsewhere in the blogosphere, I failed to read Blackshama’s Blog’s reaction to my columns on Marcos. But now that I have, you know, I’m working on a theory. Marcos established a New Society as the dominant discourse: it justified the scrapping of the liberal-democratic order created in 1935; and it was,actually, the justification for Edsa 1 and even Edsa Dos -and explains the refusal of what was once Marcos’ strongest constituency, the middle and upper classes frightened by Communism, to be politically engaged since 2005. Neither Edsa created a New Society, so why bother?
Think of it. Sift through all the reasons people give for not being politically active since 2005 (never mind examples of extreme social alienation, as shown in , or of guilt, as expressed by Hello Tiger Kitty), sift through the things people enumerate as everything wrong with this country (oligarchy, etc.) and then sift through what they want -basically, a Year Zero- and where it might be headed (a swing to the Right, suggests Ren’s Public Notebook) what do you have?
Ang Bagong Lipunan!
Another idea to explore is described in History Unfolding’s entry on Politics and Fourth Turnings:
William Strauss and Neil Howe, who wrote Generations and The Fourth Turning, divided American history into periods of approximately 80 years, called saeculums (Latin for a long human life.) In turn they divided each such period into four “turnings,” a High, an Awakening, an Unraveling and a Crisis. After the civil war crisis, the High lasted approximately from 1867 to 1885, the Awakening from about 1885 to 1905, the Unraveling until 1929 or so, and the crisis through 1945. In our own time the High ran from 1945 to 1965, the Awakening from then until the mid-1980s, the Unraveling from about 1985 until. . .sometime in the last 8 years.
This is a concept that resonates with me, because I approached recent events along similar (though not as intricate) lines in.
The Marocharim Experiment on the sociology of dance moves. It’s sad to note Patsada Karajaw has vanished from the blogosphere.
Technorati Tags: Blogging, books, constitution, economy, Edsa, history, House of Representatives, Marcos, media, military, mindanao, philippines, politics, society
Kagalit ‘tong statement na ‘to. Sisihin ang tao kung bakit sila nagpadaya, pero hindi ang mga nandaraya, in fact even making excuses for the cheaters. Ganito na ba talaga kabaluktot mag-isip ang ibang pilipino?
ay_naku, toto-o, otherwise we would not be arguing about it in this blog but instead we can compare ourselves to the developing world or even the First World, discussing about the returns of this and that investment of which ivy league our children would go to school in college.
A”Whale of a difference” despite the” similarities”:
1)The Punos: Chief Justice Reynato Puno who upholds the “majesty of the law” and Ronnie Puno who….(never mind).
2)The De Venecias: Joey ,the brave whistle blower and his dad,the great political compromiser.
3)The Spanish Filipino Elite:JAZA,MAP management man of the year and Enrique Razon of ICTSI(and ZTE deal?)
4)The Opposition Senators: Senators Pimentel and Lacson ,true oppositionists, and the “Loyal opposition” senators led by Manny Villar.
5)The Governors:Governor “Amang” Panlilio of Pampanga and Governor Ben Evardone of ULAP who claims to have given the “brown bags”.
6) The Newspaper Columnists: Jarius Bondoc,the fearless columnist who first exposed the ZTE scandal, and Alex Magat,the defender of the faith.
7) The Bishops:Archbishop Angel Lagdameo (President ,CBCP) and Archbishop Oscar Cruz ,brave voices of The Church, and the “silent majority” of bishop members in the CBCP.
8)The Business Clubs:The Makati Business Club,credible group of responsible businessmen and Donald Dee’s PCCI.
9)The Military Men :Mr. Esperon and the “few brave men”.
10)The Newspapers :Philippine Daily Inquirer and Razon’s Manila Standard.
11)Couples for Christ:Tony Meloto of Gawad Kalinga and Frank Padilla.
12) The TV Broadcasters : Ricky Carandang,fearless and intelligent broadcaster, and Mike Enriquez( TV broadcaster).
13)The TV Stations :ANC and Channel 4( the government station).
14) The Opinion Makers:Randy David of Inquirer and Iggy Bunye of ops..
15)The Only Filipino Women Presidents:Cory Aquino,who helped restore our democratic institutions, and Gloria Arroyo(obvious).
KG: welcome back!
cvj
at long last we’re actually converging…Ialso do believe in a socialist concept with democratic leanings. So maybe we do agree after all. di lang tayo nagkaintindihan.
Regarding the reeducation thing, kasi di ko lang maintindihan yung sinasabi mong expedience scenario. The middle class did not choose expedience. What happened at that time was that nobody figured GMA to be an old style trapo. Akala ng lahat neo-trapo lang. Eh hindi pala.
AY naku
Read the words carefully, I am arguing that it is not the elites and middle class’ fault that the masses could not protect their vote. The key ideas there is that somebody was blaming the elites and the middle class.
cjv, looking back at my score, I also got negative on both counts. maybe that was because before I joined the Conservative party I was a long time member of the New Democrats,(socialist) until the Party Blew it Big time by breaking its campaign promises and along with the leader who is now a liberal, i decided to turn conservative. (now I feel at home, the Conservative party here is more of Liberal than Liberals, we call it Moderates).
“Those two acts alone, with witnesses, is enough to get people to condemn him anyway. For me, the trial is mainly a formality.” – Silent Waters
_______________________
I want to make myself clear first,I am against any form of violence and any unconstitutional means of effecting change in our country.
If I am going to subscribe to your observation and accept the “sworn statements” (not just the media account of the event)of witnesses , it seems to me that if the Manila Peninsula management will not sue, Trillanes and Company do not have a case.
Now, if you want to condemn them for that, I give that to you.
Silent Waters, I read the words carefully before I commented. Nakakagalit talaga, baluktot talaga eh, kahit bali-baliktadin mo pa. Labas ako sa discussions nyo ni cvj about blaming the elites and the middle class. But I’ll say this: it’s GMA’s fault that she cheated big-time in the elections. Huwag sisihin ang mga tao dahil “nagpadaya” sila by not “protecting” their votes, na parang dapat tanggapin na lang natin na S.O.P. na ang pandaraya at sige ok lang na gawin ito, wala na tayong magagawa, ganun talaga ang sistema eh, let’s just be extra-vigilant na lang. Ganun? Naku naman. Let’s strongly condemn the cheaters and demand that they be accountable for their misdeeds.
Am I saying that it’s the fault of the elite and middle class for not “protecting” the electorates’ vote? Uhm, not really. But I am expressing my extreme disapproval and disappointment at a significant portion of the elites and middle class for looking the other way when strong and credible evidence came out indicating that GMA massively cheated, sometimes even making excuses for what she did. Or some of those who did condemn the cheating but we’re “too soft” on GMA when she refused to hold herself accountable for her actions, with GMA even using more foul play to shield herself from accountability, acting in bad faith the whole time.
The Equalizer,
Can You tell me more about PCCI and Donald Dee?
Thanks Karl! I have added your scores.
Jaxius, i appreciate that it’s your opinion. I just can’t help but compare it to your other opinion on the inadmissibility of the Hello Garci wiretaps. One party (i.e. Trillanes) is judged on the basis of actual events, while the other (i.e. GMA) is let off on a matter of law (i.e. the anti-wiretapping law) as if the actual event (as revealed in the wiretaps) did not happen.
That’s exactly my sentiment. I believe you have stated it better than i have.
maybe cvj and ay_naku are judges of what court? i hope it’s not the carabao court or the kangaroo court. you are implying that you have in your possession what? ‘strong and credible evidence’ that gma cheated?
“Jaxius, i’m surprised that you did not wait for a court of law to make that determination. I suppose you think Trillanes’ and Lim’s act of petulance is more indefensible than stealing the Presidency.” -cvj
cvj I AM SURPRISED THAT YOU DID NOT WAIT FOR A COURT OF LAW TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION by agreeing to the sentiments of your comrade ay_naku on whether or not massive cheating happened in the 2004 elections. how about some consistency?
Equalizer, on your #6 above, don’t you mean Alex Magno?
from N. Cruz’s column
Spain refused reforms, Katipunan happened. this admin refuses to reform, well – should i repeat what I keep on saying?
Bastille is imminent.
cvj – the problem of creating social equity via a socialist revolution, which China exemplified, is that it will put so much power into a few hands. The wise knows that power corrupts even those with the purest intentions (The Lord of the Rings eloquently tells of this parable). In fact, I was surprised you made China the model for changing our social framework. Remember Tiananmen? That’s hundreds of Jonas Burgos’s, honey. The same Jonas Burgos for whom you claim your heart bleeds.
Authoritarianism, whether elitist or popular, will always mean suppression of civil liberties. Remember, “… the slaves of today, the tyrants of tommorrow”?
The best thing about our kind of democracy is that it SPREADS POWER across three branches of government. It is not the best defense against oligarchy, but it is a pragmatic solution to what is essentially human nature: the lust for power.
We have a very independent judiciary (which Trillanes et al arrogantly disrespected) and a working legislative branch (the people got to elect their choice of senators in the last elections, right?). There is no need to overhaul this government.
Achieving social equity is possible without a social revolution that is sure to trample on our freedom. The United Kingdom is a good model (UK taxation for example is hilariously socialist and yet they are ruled by a monarch who has the power to dissolve congress). But change will be slow, and it requires a conservative attitude among the ruled that given the right institutions that checks and balances power, a just society that creates opportunities for all will emerge.
jaxius, thanks for your well-reasoned analysis of what transpired at makati as described by eye-witnesses, biased and neutral alike. also, for your view on the inescapable legal consequences of the acts and liabilities of the actor.
the difference in how you treat this trillianes issue, and how cvj (and like-minded individuals in and out of this blog)view gma’s alleged “cheating”, is that your’s is an educated, legally sound and logically unassailable OPINION whereas, their’s is CONCLUSION of fact and law based on nothing but conjectures, theories, and guesswork mostly by the hostile media and self-serving politicians.
while your opinion appears to be a product of careful thinking and application of right reason, their’s seems to stem from blind emotions of hate, anger, envy, and plain prejudice. these are the kinds of people that are impervious to reason. the only “truth” they accept are those that are consistent with their prejudices and which tends to validate their preconceived “facts”. indeed, it is difficult, nay impossible, to debate with this kind.
while it’s clear that you are stating an opinion by specifically prefacing your statement with “i think”, cvj and friends would premise all their arguments, concerning any problem, upon “gloria’s cheating” as though it was an indubitable fact established by a competent forum or authority. i can understand how those poor individuals, whom cvj classify as “masa”, can be easily victimized and misled by intellectual dishonesty and misinformation. but when apparently educated, self-confessed “middle class” like cvj stubbornly rejects reason over emotion, i can only suspect a self-serving personal objective rather than consideration of “fairness” and “justice”.
devils, as long as “revolts” are led and planned by the likes of trillianes et al., satur et al., joma sison, or even erap, bastille is a virtual impossibility. maybe if you lead it, who knows?
it’s trillanes’ ambition that was revealed for all the world to see  and whoever were behind his “daring†move yesterday…madonna
so true. and if you happened to visit pcij here’s an interesting read:
so, he knows. what an irony. even writing a paper on “preventing military interventions†and then disregarding his own counsel. so, if i may ask, what made him change his mind? OR who made him change his mind (and then betrayed him)? again i say, smart move.
Do people still believe that Sen. Trillanes did this to assemble a critical mass of protesters, enough to oust Gloria? He’s not that naive. It’s just the nature of the beast. He’s just using all the arsenal available to him to fight for his beliefs. Quixotic, maybe. But who doesn’t love, or at least, admire Don Quixote. To paraphrase Chairman Mao: Baby steps…
ECRider,
You’re giving him too much credit. He just chickened out and stormed out of court. When arrogant people have fear in their hearts, they do stupid things. I guess his so-called arsenal is using civilians like media people as human shields, and let’s not forget holing it out in another 5-star establishment.
The fact is, his imagination failed him. It’s that simple, stop romanticizing this mess and turn him into the hero he is not.
it’s just like to to consider betrayal as a ‘smart move‘. i suppose you think Judas Iscariot was a genius then.
“mere muchacho,†a lowly errand boy of the United Nations.
Raul Gonzalez is not the only one who thinks of Australian lawyer and New York law professor Philip Alston as a “mere muchacho,†a lowly errand boy of the United Nations. The chief of staff of the Armed Forces, Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, shares the same contempt for the UN special rapporteur.
After Alston submitted to the UN Human Rights Council his final report on “extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions†in the Philippines last week, Esperon belittled Alston’s mission, calling it “half-baked.â€Â(inquirer)
For the information of Raul Gonzalez and Mr.Esperon, the profile of the UN “muchacho”
Philip G. Alston
John Norton Pomeroy Professor of Law
Biography
New York University School of Law
Education
LL.B., University of Melbourne, with honors, 1972
LL.M., University of Melbourne, 1976
B. Comm., University of Melbourne, 1976
LL.M., University of California at Berkeley School of Law, 1977
J.S.D., University of California at Berkeley School of Law, 1980
Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.
Bencard
I agree on a lot of what you said. People always have their own agenda and that is what is driving their views of the goings on in the Philippines. Evrybody will always slant their views. I admit that I also slant my views because of all the factors I was faced with when I was growing up. And I do try to fight that tendency consciously as I know it colors critical thinking.
On the other hand, I sometimes don’t understand why people seem to take it as an affront to them when views are expressed contrary to their beliefs, to the point that sometimes, they viciously attack the messenger.
Manolo: Get well soon!
…and more essays please!
🙂
Ay naku
You are another one of those with romantic views of the world. Sorry dude. The masa HAS to do everything to protect their votes. They can’t wait for the elitists and the middle class to do it for them. Hindi baluktot yun. That’s the reality on the ground. Democracy doesn’t come to you on a silver platter.
Matagal ko na sinasabi ito. We have to be responsible (whether from the elites, the middle class and the masses) for making sure democracy will work by being disciplined and responsible for our own actions. Some people here don’t subscribed to that. For them, basta we elect the right people into power, solve na ang problema ng Pilipinas. Basta we get rid of the oligarchs and refocus the middle class, ok na. (Please do correct me if I am wrong since that’s the impression given to me here). We are a people of 80M individual minds, with different aspirations, different outlooks, different mentalities. How do you think the country moves forward if we don;t become responsible and disciplined?
Rather than look at what the masa should be doing, the elite and the middle class should do things on the basis of what is right. Is it for some ‘romantic reason’? Far from it. Experiences of successful countries have shown that what distinguishes them from the less successful ones is the presence of what is known as Social Capital. The framework that you endorse…
…is hostile to the growth of Social Capital and therefore ultimately harmful to the interests of the elite and middle class. It is hostile because it goes against reciprocity, which is one of its foundations. Philippine Society has all the building blocks in the form of bayanihan, pagmamalasakit, katarungan, karapatan etc. It is our responsibility as ordinary citizens to nurture and operationalize these values at the national level.
Far from being ‘romantics’, those who see the folly of your expedient worldview are our society’s immune system. Our numbers, (relative to those of the ‘expedients’) will determine which way our Society will eventually go.
Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.
Equalizer, a technique perfected by majority of Philipines’ trained lawyers and professionals spinners and it’s no wonder they can wiggle out of any thing, even the obvious, by just screaming, “show us the evidence” (they already buried the evidence, or bought them up)but mostly by learning the old style Goebbels’s methodologies just keep repeating the lies, eventually they themselves will get convinced to their truthfulness and even believe in their ‘geniuses’
Th Equalizer
“Argumentum ad Hominem” Everyone makes logical fallacies. Even Father Joaqui Bernas in his column.
So what’s up with PCCI?
CVJ
WTF? I never said that the elites and middle class shouldn’t do what is right? I just said don’t rely on them to protect the votes FOR THE MASA. The masa should do it themselves. It is the same for everybody. Why is it that you insist to let the masa off the hook ba talaga? Kasi tanga sila? EVRYBODY SHOULD BE RESPONSBILE TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT. GET THAT INTO YOUR THICK HEAD. That is exactly what I meant by being disciplined and responsible. DON’T LET OTHERS DO THE WORK FOR YOU. DO IT YOURSELF. You sure do have a messianic complex like Trililing there.
Let me ask you another question then, why did YOU GO to SIngapore? Di ba interest ng pamilya mo ang iginawad mo? So what do you expect also. That these people whom you always assume, just because they rich, that they did immoral and illegal things, to just forget their own interest? Graba ka talaga. I was just trying to point out to you the obvious. That’s why I was insistent in you coming back to Manila. Kasi nga to prove a point to you. Lahat may interest. Di lang ikaw.
Silent Waters, so you think looking the other way while Gloria Arroyo cheated her way to the presidency is the right thing to do?
Carl, sorry didn’t notice your comment until now. I agree with what you say on the dangers of authoritarianism. That’s why we have to take our democracy more seriously and that means not tolerating those who subvert it (e.g. via electoral fraud) and making sure that the system benefits majority of Filipinos so that it is worth defending. However, as to your statement…
…if it has to be authoritarianism, then the history of China, Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan and Japan shows that a popular, rather an elitist variant should be followed to make that project worth while. We always need a Plan B.
Again, you conveniently ignore the issue of GMA’s galling cheating and all her subsequent evasive (and sometimes repressive and illegal) actions to avoid accountability. Baluktot yun.
Romantic views? I’ll keep on insisting on justice and fairness and accountability, and just trying to do the right things and “fighting” for them if need be. I’d rather have that than just simply accept the crooked situation as it is and, well, just disengage and not pay attention to all the wrongdoings. If that’s the romantic view, I’d gladly have it anytime.
ay_naku
The issue on whether gma cheated or not has not yet and has never been proven in court, therefore, what you are saying would still fall under the category of ‘accusations.’ plus the fact that the opposition just does not have the numbers to impeach gma.
Get real, justice, fairness & accountability do exist but not in all levels of the society in all people all the time. have you heard of the word reality lately? wake up.
ay_naku_ka_din, as i was telling Silent Waters, do not confuse realism with short-sightedness.
cvj
Let’s not also confuse allegations from facts proven in the court of law not unless we would want to become self-proclaimed judges or justices (hiding behind the skirt of malasakit kuno)
ay_naku_ka_din, let’s not confuse facts in the real world to determinations made by a court of law. (refer to coward’s comment at 11:10am above.)
“Even if he’s calling for the resignation of GMA, does not make him less liable for his criminal acts?”
Silent Water,
Calling for the resignation of a bogus, illegitimate president is a perfectly legitimate political exercise.
It is NOT a criminal act.
Umless a tyrannical regime wishes to criminalize it.
cvj
When we are talking about offenses bordering on civil and criminal liabilities, your acts in the real world can only go as far in the realm of how the justice system works – not unless it’s backed up by evidence – in whatever country you go to (not unless you make up your own carabao court or kangaroo court and make your own laws and procedures). Now if you would put forward your facts of the real world higher than the ‘acts proven in the court of law in your hierarchy of values then you better change residence and stay out of a democratic country (a democratic country has such a thing as a justice system in case it’s only now you heard of it).
Now, if you would want to go to the court of public opinion then you may do so. whether you like it or not, whether it’s obvious or not, whether it’s true or not, a person has a right to have his/her day in court. it might sound trite but a person is still innocent until proven guilty which is enshrined in the constitution. damning? yes but if you want to cut corners on that matter, then a democratic country is not the place for you and your ideals. (try nokor or cuba)
Even without a court of law or an impeachment, how is it that we’re sure there was massive fraud in the 2004 elections?
There are a lot of question marks about the Garci tapes, their veracity, the timing of their release, Ong, Doble, etc, etc.
Legarda’s challenge didn’t have a clear conclusion.
Almost all pre and post election polls had GMA winning by about 1M votes.
Until and unless they recount the votes or unearth the originals of the tapes, allegations of electoral fraud remain to be but allegations. Yet this “fraud” is the kernel of the illegitimacy argument used to justify all sorts of actions.
Those who claim to know the truth, don’t.
Those who destruct and disrupt while claiming to know the truth, shouldn’t.
The anti-GMA crowd has pushed the rest of us to follow them, to wake up, to smarten up, to save the country…but they still can’t figure out why their cries go unanswered; why their message doesn’t reverberate.
And now I’m reading about how maybe we just need an authoritarian leadership in order to “cleanse” the nation? Goodness. Maybe a decade or so of killing fields can help cure the population problem as well, eh? Good idea!
Enough already.
“We have a very independent judiciary (which Trillanes et al arrogantly disrespected)”
correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the military court the one handling Trillanes and Lim’s case? the SC may still be very independent, but i can hardly say the same abt the CA and some RTC’s. and the military court handling their cases are so partisan you’d be blind not to see that.
“and a working legislative branch (the people got to elect their choice of senators in the last elections, right?). There is no need to overhaul this government.”
if u mean the people got to elect leaders who betray their mandate and call that a working branch, then yes that working branch needs to be overhauled. we need a proactive system that can quickly make such officials accountable for such actions. so that coups and stunts like Trillanes’ won’t happen.
as it is, legitimate means of reforms are blocked, thereby forcing those who are seeking redress to use other means.
CVJ
That the’s problem you really have, CVJ…you think that we just look the other way with respect to ANY wrongdoing in our country. It really shows your personal bias against people who are either part of the elite or the middle class. Hanggang ngayon, di mo pa rin nakikita ang sinasabi ko. EVRYBODY HAS A STAKE IN OUR COUNTRY’S WELFARE, from whichever class they came from. Your problem is, just because a few of your so called middle class civil society (of which I understood you were part of) decided to install GMA and realized you all made a mistake, you made a sweeping statement already that ALL elitists and middle class persons already conforms to the status quo. Hoy, ang middle class hindi lang sa Maynila. Don’t equate Manila to the whole country.
I reiterate again, people are different from each other. Only guys like you who think popular dictatorship is the answer to all your problems believe people are basically robots who will just follow whatever the “enlightened” dictator decides. My take is that people SHOULD be responsible and have discipline as good citizens (and for those oppose this, then it just proves to me that you guys Don’t want to be responsible and disciplined).
You challenge me by saying if I think GMA cheated her way to the presidency is the right thing to do? Boy, is that a trick question. Ano tingin mo sa akin…bobo? Of course it’s not. But if YOU believe in the democratic process, then you also should understand that there are rules to follow and that there are procedures to take.
I know, I know, your next argument would be…but she subverts the rules. so I throw back the question to YOU. Do YOU break the law yourself because SHE breaks the law? For somebody who thinks that she has done wrong for breaking the laws of our country, you certainly seem to think in the same way.
I am sorry, my friend, you will never be able to convince me of your theory because it smacks of authoritarianism and violence, whether elitist or popular. Too many times in history, I have seen good intentions giving way to bad governance. (GMA included..baka may masabi ka pa). Paano pa kaya kung dictatorship.
Tent Tackle
Please read the whole comment….What I was really saying is he can protest all he wants…but don’t violate other people’s rights to property in the process. No matter how you look at it…he smashed a door to gain access, threatening the guards of the hotel, scared a lot of hotel guest and basically commandered the building.
His grievances does not justify his criminal actions. If he had just decided to speak in Luneta Park or the Plaza outside of City Hall against the Arroyo governement, by all means. It’s a public place.
Legitimate means of reform have NOT been blocked. There have been many reforms by the admin, the bureaucracies and the legislature. Maybe you haven’t noticed. That said, I’d like to see more. If the politicians and their supporters/backers spent MORE time on reforms — and less on their jousting for power — we’d all be better off. Unfortunately, some sectors just want to keep the noise high rather than get down to work.
The same politicians keep getting elected. If the electorate feels like a change, it can vote for one. But these are the reps and senators that they asked for.
The SC has been pretty independent. (BTW, that was a Makati RTC that Triallanes walked out of)
Most of us want things to be better…but we don’t want revolutions, coups and unconstitutional overhauls, thank you. It’s about time that the small agitating minority figures this out.
That doesn’t mean we need to be blind, or move on and ignore problems, or stifle the media, or whatever. Improvements and alterations are always needed; but it’s probably better if they are done peacefully, gradually and within a democratic system (and with its corresponding processes and procedures).
Tent Tackle
Para maintindihan mo…the protest itself is not criminal…the takeover of a private property without the consent of the owner IS.
Geo
I agree wholeheartedly. ANg dami kasi dito gusto nila magdanak na lang ng dugo.
ay naku
Nobody said you shouldn’t keep on fighting for justice.
You attacked my opinion about the masa’s behavior and why the blame all falls on the elites and the middle class. If you read what I said, my point is that everybody (ALL as in elites, middle class and the masses) should be responsible enough to fight for and protect their votes. CVJ was saying that it is only the elites and middle class’s who is responsible to protect the masa’s votes. Parang sinasabi niya sa akin, basta nakapag boto na ang masa, hugas kamay na sila. and then he blames the other classes for the failure of the system to work. That was my beef with him. By the way he’s saying it, he himself thinks the masses are not to be trusted to take care of themselves. Kailangan ng isang big brother (elites and middle class) to take care of the masses kasi mangmang sila. For him, the masses are not to be responsible for the system to work, only the elites and the middle class.
Up to now, he still doesn’t get where I am coming from. Sobra yata siya fixated sa theory niya on popular dictatorship, he forgot that in the end, everybody should be in this together.
“What I was really saying is he can protest all he wants…but don’t violate other people’s rights to property in the process.”
Silent Waters,
Violate other people’s rights to property?
ho,ho,ho,ho! you are dreaming SW.
They were there holed up in a room with civilians and media people. They did not destroy properties nor confiscate any property. Get real, Silent Waters.
Ho ho ho Tent Tackle…they did destroy the property…they forced themselves in by crashing down a door and then threatened the guards….THERE ARE WITNESSES IN THE HOTEL TO CONFIRM THAT. Get your facts straight amigo.
Hirap kasi sa inyo GMA haters, you can’t accept it that you admired what turned out to be a thug. HA HA HA.
When you want to fight injustice, you better make sure the person leading the fighting is up to snuff. Matagal nang basa ang papel ni Trililing…ngayon niyo lang kasi nakita.
Buti pa si Chiz…yan ang oposisyon. Marunong tumira.