Bullies, the bullied, and bystanders

 Randy David

Watching that disturbing video of a Filipino middle school boy threatening, insulting and beating up a terrified fellow student inside a school toilet, in a brazen display of bullying power, struck me in a way that I could not fully understand. I had to review the video a number of times to grasp what it was that made it specially chilling to watch.

Finally, on perhaps the seventh or eighth replay, it dawned on me: The bully was not only aware that the entire encounter was being recorded. He, in fact, also seemed like he was performing for an imagined audience of anonymous voyeurs. At one point, he brashly faced the camera, as though to address the gallery, and went on to describe in a cold measured tone what options he was offering to his prey — a beating or a rite of degradation (that included kissing his genitals).

Read on…

For whom the bells toll

Amelia HC Ylagan

… When Amb. Kim made his speech for the turnover of the bells, he made no apologies, no explanations for the confiscation of the bells by the US. He simply said, “In World War II and in Korea, our soldiers fought, bled, died, and sacrificed side by side. Together they made possible the peace and prosperity we enjoy today… Our relationship has withstood the tests of history and flourishes today. And every day our relationship is further strengthened by our unbreakable alliance, robust economic partnership, and deep people-to-people ties” (usembassy.gov, Dec 11, 2018).

Somehow, Amb. Kim’s careful diplomatic allusions to “our relationship” cannot but call back Pres. Duterte’s oft-repeated open disdain for the US (specially for past US President Barack Obama and for immediate-past Ambassador Philip Goldberg). Duterte’s rejection has progressively been made more painful to the US, juxtaposed to his open and gushy declaration of love for Chinese President Xi Jinping and all things Chinese. In the current heightened US-China global trade and political war, the suddenly rushed return of the Balangiga bells might plaintively ring: but we two — the Philippines and the US — we are friends, are we not?

… And insistently, triumphantly, the bells will toll again at Balangiga. But for whom, and for what will the bells toll?

The once-silenced Balangiga bells must peal and boom even more urgently now than in the chilling wars of betrayal and treachery for dominance and power in the early 1900s. The jubilation for national pride redeemed by the return of the symbolic bells is confused by the sickening feeling in the pit that the horned specter of dominance and greed still hovers, in the appearance of the Filipino’s own skin and mien. For colonization and dominance, and its treachery and betrayals can also be by our own leaders.

So many issues in our country that overwhelm us at yearend: is there really democracy guided by the rule of law, in the insuppressible and persistent “rumors” of extrajudicial killings and transgressions of human rights, protested and called down locally and by foreign observers?

Have we not observed and experienced first-hand how the constitution and the laws have been turned upside down in shockingly unorthodox little-known legal trickeries like the quo warranto to remove a Chief Justice; and the revocation of amnesty granted to one particular ex-putschist senator and present critic of the administration? Why are other politicians accused of plunder and other high crimes pardoned? What about the fate of another senator languishing in jail for alleged drug involvement? And are we not chilled by the continuous extension of martial law in Mindanao, justified by an Armed Forces who should have been doing its job as it is supposed to be competently doing?

Are we not aghast and terrified at the blatant dishonesty and corruption that are dismissed lightly for “friends” of those in power versus the persecution by evidently trumped-up charges for the vulnerable non-friends or those “unfriended” for lost utility? And we are overwhelmed in anxiety for a 2019 budget not yet approved, discovering in painful bits and pieces the self-serving “insertions” and allocations of “savings” in hidden pork barrel that was already deemed unconstitutional in the previous administration. Players in the controlling “team” seem to be fighting each other in sibling rivalry for opportunistic control of the resources of government — nay, the resources of the people.

But the unkindest cut of all by the “new colonizers” that we may call those who want to perpetuate themselves in economic and political power, is rushing the charter change for federalism to be transfused into our life veins. We will not be a free people anymore if the Hadean concepts are installed and institutionalized of unlimited terms for government positions, allowed political dynasties forever, and the divide-and-rule over federal regions controlled by a president practically for life, with a convenient vice-president of the president’s own party and personal subservience — among other self-serving and opportunistic insurances of control and impunity by those already in power.

The Balangiga bells must toll for freedom and democracy in the Philippines.

Worst ChaCha Ever

The legal argument against martial law

Oscar Franklin Tan

Who sends Tyrion Lannister to a sword fight and Jaime Lannister to a negotiating table? Sadly, this is what the most vocal legal critics of martial law have done in the past 18 months.

Martial law is our most formidable emergency power. Deploying it merits serious political and legal questions.

The political asks: Is martial law correct? The legal asks a more basic question: Is it even permitted given the facts?

Law sets minimums but cannot decide for us.

How confused has the legal debate been?

Initially, for example, critics argued a president may not declare martial law if not recommended by his defense secretary.

No judge could accept this. Our Constitution has no such requirement and it is illogical because a president may overrule or even replace his defense secretary any time.

Sensible legal advocates frame:

1. What actual powers does martial law grant?

2. How has martial law actually been used since May 23, 2017?

3. What military plans for 2019 cannot be pursued without martial law?

Visualize the Marawi siege.

At its height, Mayor Majul Gandamra and policemen barricaded themselves in Marawi’s City Hall, preventing the Islamic State flag from being flown there. City hall reopened days later, although it was too dangerous for staff to come to work daily.

This is the extreme scenario martial law solves. With the mayor fighting for his life and other officials dead or in hiding, martial law empowers a general to intervene and restore government.

But this picture equally demonstrates when martial law is irrelevant.

If no bullets are flying and City Hall is open, what does martial law authorize the general to do that he cannot normally do? Remember, the military already has broad powers, to match its broad responsibilities.

Article VII, Section 18 of our Constitution primarily requires an “actual” — this is the technical legal term, contrasted with threatened or imminent — rebellion to declare martial law.

Our Supreme Court’s Lagman decision, in February 2018, allowed a second martial law extension. It accepted that an “actual” rebellion tried to remove territory from the government. The military is still chasing rebels across Mindanao as they try to regroup, recruit new members and restart the fighting.

How does one dissect planned action in 2019 in a legal context?

If the plan is for a general to run Marawi due to a new attack, this may meet Article VII, Section 18.

But if the plan is to chase rebels into mountains and swamps, troops may be transferred to Mindanao under normal powers. And generals do not need to temporarily take control of mountains and swamps from civilian leaders.

If the plan is to step up intelligence and counter terrorist recruitment, the military is also already authorized. And only new legislation, not martial law, would give them additional budgets and new legal tools for intelligence.

If the plan is to improve peace and order and scour the countryside for loose firearms, then this is a job for police, not the military. Peace and order is a civilian task and the police is a civilian agency.

Remember, the military may be deployed to assist police under normal powers, without martial law, as they are to help build roads in remote areas and rescue flood victims.

One concludes martial law is the wrong legal tool to achieve many military goals, as opposed to new legislation, increased budgets and troop redeployments. It is thus crucial to set politics and egos aside and have the separate legal debate free
of drama.

The goal must be to deploy the best legal tools to allow our soldiers to complete their mission safely and allow Marawi to rebuild with dignity.

Further, we have an obligation to the next generation to document how the new martial law was implemented in fidelity to our Constitution.

But we must understand the difference between political and legal arguments, as we do the difference between standing beside Tyrion and beside Jaime in a sword fight.