Category: elections

the marcos curse #ByeByeMarcos

as if the omicron surge and the duterte government’s care-less response weren’t bad enough, we have to deal with a marcos jr. running for president…

one who brings back awful memories of martial law, the conjugal dictatorship, the greatest robbery of a government, the murder of ninoy aquino…

one who faces disqualification cases filed by civil society groups on grounds of income tax evasion and moral turpitude that the COMELEC is taking its sweet time deciding.

not surprisingly there’s talk of “insider” info that the COMELEC, whose seven commissioners are duterte appointees, is “not inclined to disqualify the client of legendary solicitor general Estelito Mendoza of the elder Marcos.”

raissa robles is right.  “The Marcoses never really left home” (Inquirer 2014).

In 1998, by Imee Marcos’ own reckoning, “we waited 12 years to be on the right side of the fence.” Right side meant a political alliance with then victorious President-elect Joseph Estrada, velvet seats in Congress for Imee and her mother, and a governorship for Bongbong.

An ecstatic Imee spilled the family’s secret to success: “Many professionals were appointed by my father. So you have this immense bedrock of Marcos appointees who keep moving up.”

Like secret stay-behind units, this vast army of professionals scattered in all sectors of society have defended the Marcoses and helped erase the dark legacy of their regime. 

it’s like ferdinand marcos laid a cruel curse on the nation that the children are happily carrying on in his name, in his memory, with the eager support of a “bedrock” of grateful and beholden loyalists, bureaucrats and professionals from all sectors, who held the fort while they were away, and who have since moved up to real positions of power.

maybe this explains why the court of appeals dropped the jail sentence in marcos jr’s appeal of the RTC decision vis a vis his failure to file income tax returns for four years?

and maybe why COMELEC’s 2nd division ruled against canceling his COC despite the NO to question #22 because the respondent daw “cannot be said to have deliberately attempted to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render him ineligible” ?!?

really ?!?  as in, he didn’t mean to lie?  is that like saying it was an honest mistake?

but is there anything honest about marcos jr. who has lied again and again about historical facts vis a vis martial law and his parents’ plundering ways, human rights violations and EDSA ’86?

and isn’t the fact that he took 4 years to follow the court of appeal’s order to pay up an indication of moral turpitude — a demonstration of arrogance, as though he were above the law?  isn’t that of a piece with the supreme court’s 2016 definition of moral turpitude in G.R. No. 219603?

Moral turpitude is defined as everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general. Although not every criminal act involves moral turpitude, the Court is guided by one of the general rules that crimes mala in se involve moral turpitude while crimes mala prohibita do not.  G.R. No. 219603

mala in se are acts wrongful in itself.  mala prohibita are acts that are not inherently evil or wrong.

i submit that tax evasion and lying about having been convicted are inherently wrong — no ifs or buts, no benefit of any doubt — and the liar and tax evader marcos jr. should be disqualified.

here’s praying the COMELEC en banc — or failing there, the supreme court — sees the light and disqualifies marcos jr. once and for all time.

otherwise these institutions would be complicit in perpetuating, keeping alive, the marcos curse on nation, and history and posterity will judge them harshly for betrayal of public trust.

bongbong’s crowds — the voice of god ?!?

vox populi, vox dei — the voice of the people is the voice of god — so say the arroyo-estrada-duterte-marcos gangs who are ecstatic at the optic message that the bongbong-sara crowds, hakot and / or not, are sending to a sadly easily impressed electorate.  inez ponce de leon rightly asks: which people and which god?

We… The Circus?

Ireland is experiencing a shortage of clowns.

This was trivia tweeted in late September. The response to it was universal: does Ireland want our politicians? We can send them over!

It’s a response that rings truer each day as the Philippines heads toward the 2022 elections. A former activist lawyer joins the senatorial slate of the son of the former dictator. A current senator withdraws his candidacy for president. Arroyo, Duterte, Estrada, and Marcos come together to form a mega-clan of political families, all with the purpose of backing the Marcos Jr./Duterte Jr. tandem.

This coalition boasts that it has the majority, and points to the shouts of the many crowds that greet it. Vox populi, vox Dei; the voice of the people is the voice of God.

But wait … which people and which God?

The Latin phrase has been invoked so often that it is in danger of being misused. It appears to allude to Cicero’s idea of the people with a voice. However, Cicero was not talking about all people and just any voice: His concept was reserved for those who carried out clear and informed argumentation, at venues that allowed introspection and reflection. The first known use of the actual phrase is in a letter to Charlemagne by Alcuin: “And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness.”

The key, then, is not to simply believe in the crowds. Instead, there is a need to critically examine anyone who claims to be the majority. What exactly is this group doing that must merit a vote, regardless of how many people appear to support it?

This so-called “UniTeam” is led by politicians who promise to pull the country out of poverty, but have yet to answer charges of tax evasion, produce tangible proof of their education, or demonstrate ability to govern on the national level. This super-party has led caravans across bridges for dramatic meetings, or through a major highway where it held up traffic for hours. The voice of the people is assumed to be shouts, honking horns, crowds scrambling over each other for free t-shirts.

But what about the people handing out hot rice porridge? The people putting together meal packs for poor families? The people creating pink Christmas lanterns and selling them for charity? The supporters cleaning up parks, organizing free rides, listening to citizens who are not online? Are their voices any less loud because they aren’t shouting into a microphone? Are they any less united because they aren’t publicly signing coalition agreements?

The “UniTeam” seems to be yet another group that expects its followers to speak with one voice and espouse one belief. There is no space for dissent, no room for divergent thinking that will allow us to examine the many facets of our problems, no allowance for differing opinions that will help us have actual representation in government. This is not unity in diversity, or unity in allowing different groups with disparate interests to work together. This is a coalition that builds walls to close its ranks, and then delights in division.

This “UniTeam” has simply shown that it can attract attention, inconvenience motorists, and put people at risk during a pandemic. The caravan was not a show of support; it was a demonstration of how the candidates could manipulate crowds and exploit the desperation of people, and it sets a frightening scenario of what we can expect should we allow these candidates to win. To allow them space in our political arena would mean that we would willingly submit to be their monkeys, to play their games, to listen to the lies of a so-called voice of the people.

If we allow this to happen, then they are not the circus.

We are.

And we will continue to be the circus if we simply fall for the noise instead of recognizing the work of those who do good things quietly, who inspire many to goodness in silence.

Our vote is only the voice of God when it remembers history and accepts the truth: that we the people are not playthings for politicians. We will not be followers of a caravan whose red colors speak so clearly of the bloodshed during the Marcos dictatorship. We are people with dignity and compassion, and we will not fall for the madness of a circus yet again.

iponcedeleon@ateneo.edu

the sara & bongbong show

nung pinakawalan ang tsismosong si cong. joey salceda with the news that davao mayor sara duterte wants to run for president, naturally the big question was, with bongbong marcos or not?  is bongbong sliding down to accommodate her?  because everybody knows that if they don’t join forces, they’d split the marcos-dutz / admin vote.  talo pareho.

but salceda, like a true gma soldier, could not, would not, be baited about bongbong.  sara’s instructions daw were simple: “just focus on me.”  which joey takes to mean, talk about me and only me, not bongbong.

well, bongbong is speaking for himself, and of course he isn’t sliding down, why ever would he when the surveys say his numbers are up.  lalo na’t he already did that, slide down, in 2016 in deference to dutz, to imelda’s great disappointment,  and where did THAT get him?!?  talo na nga sa bilangan, talo pa uli sa recount.  loozvaldez, sey ng mga bading.  besides, walang marcos na umaatras, sey ni bong2.  LOL.

obvious naman that imelda, imee, and bongbong are desperate to get back to the palace — i think they think it’s where they belong, seriously — and they’re not about to give up the momentum they’ve gained after a lot of hard work and hard spending.

nonetheless bongbong could use a runningmate who would bring in the duterte votes, and i imagine that they’re willing to pay the price.

it’s complicated for sara because the super popular senate prez and eat bulaga icon tito sotto could prove unbeatable. i imagine that right  now she’s negotiating win-or-lose conditions in case bongbong wins and she doesn’t:  like immunity from suit for old man dutz — nagawa iyan for enrile back in cory’s time;  a choice cabinet position once puwede na, tho par for the course naman yan;  and, uh, compensation for lost rakets and other damages?

i pray she asks for too much, like term-sharing — yan ang latest buzz, three years for marcos,  three years for duterte, which is simply scandalizingly outrageous.    let’s pray they end up running against each other instead.

but in case they do end up joining forces, then we in the sabóg opposition are in for the fight of our lives, hopefully against the same enemies, which would mean getting our sh*t together.  #BlockMarcos #End Duterte 

 

 

Honesty, lies and Sara Duterte

this was first published in march 2019 @inquirerdotnet, when the mayor was campaigning for her senatorial bets. now that she seems to be on the verge of running for president sa 2022, time to double up. the marcoses are not nag-iisa.

RACHEL A.G. REYES

We are not naïve, stupid or gullible. We know and even accept that in politics and in public life, white lies, untruths, evasions, dissimulation, feigning, pretense and bullshit are at times necessary, even required for political wheeling and dealing.

At the same time, truth and honesty are universally valued and cherished in social and private lives. We categorically believe that lying is wrong. Lies rebound on the liar, and we know how a single lie can wreck lives and destroy reputations. Plato was unequivocal. He said lies were evil and poisoned the soul of the person who uttered them. The French Renaissance philosopher Michel de Montaigne concurred. “In plain truth, lying is an accursed vice,” he said. “We have no tie upon one another, other than the reliability of our word.”

We can be similarly uncompromising. We demand truthfulness and honesty from our elected public servants and from our colleagues and friends. We teach our children to be truthful and honest and regard as treacherous the lover, husband or wife who is found to be untruthful and dishonest.

That said, I have been trying to fathom Sara Duterte’s thinking. The President’s daughter has recently been saying a lot about lying and honesty. But given the nature of politicking in this country, the talk has spiraled out of the realms of reason.

Sara’s thinking

As far as one can gather, her argument can be unpacked as follows: (a) all politicians lie, everybody lies; (b) honesty should not be an electoral issue; (c) there is no legal requirement for senatorial contenders to be honest, truthful and of good moral character. Neither are academic qualifications necessary. Philippine citizenship and being able to read and write would suffice.

One could take the view that championing lying, as Sara does, is hard-as-nails pragmatism. Lies can decrease conflict, promote harmony, forge compromise. In this way, one is able to justify lies, accept the utility and necessity of telling lies, if the outcome is beneficial—if more good than harm can come from falsehood. The unbounded pessimist Friedrich Nietzsche went further. He said: “That lies should be necessary to life is part and parcel of the terrible and questionable character of existence.”

Yet, society cannot possibly function if, as Sara contends, we accept that everybody lies all the time. Society, writes the British philosopher Anthony Grayling, operates on probity and integrity. “For the ordinary transactions of daily life, we have to believe that most people are telling the truth most of the time.”

But public office is a public trust

Those who penned the Philippine Constitution would agree. Section 27, Article II is explicit: “The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption.”

Moreover, Section 1 of Article XI states: “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”

I can’t see how these passages can be read as anything but a stern rebuke of Sara’s legal justification for lying and dishonesty in public life.

Sara is mayor of Davao City and running for reelection. She has been doing no campaigning of her own. This seems to be because she is very busy being the campaign manager and spokesperson for senatorial candidates running under her regional party Hugpong ng Pagbabago. Clearly, she is confident of winning the Davao mayoralty without too much effort on her part.

She’s loud and she swaggers

Loud and swaggering, Sara has enormous presence. She is not a senatorial contender but acts like one. Those who think that she has her eye firmly on the presidency and aims to succeed her father are probably right. Which is precisely the reason why we should listen to her carefully. She is amassing power before our very eyes.

Sara advocates lying and dishonesty as acceptable for those in public life. Why should this be so troubling? Because, as Grayling writes: “To tell a lie you have to know the truth but deliberately intend to communicate its very opposite to your audience. You thus commit a double crime: of knowing but concealing truth, a precious possession; and of purposefully leading others away from it.”

Would Sara apply this standard on her children? Would she allow her husband to deceive her with lies and dishonesty?

Rachel A.G. Reyes (rachelagreyes@gmail.com) is a historian of Southeast Asia and writes commentary pieces on science, gender and politics.