inday socked the sheriff! woot!

03 July 2011

i know, i know, many more were offended, shocked, outraged at the mayora’s mala-pacquiao attack on the sheriff, but in the context of a demolition scene gone violent, as usual, i could only enjoy the spectacle of sara duterte letting go with a one-two-three — you go, girl!

say ni renato reyes sa fb: reactions will vary depending on the class standpoint. sa urban poor, palakpakan sila. sa iba, medyo na-eskandalo sila sa nangyari.

siyempre napaisip ako.  why was i not offended, eh hindi naman ako urban poor.  sa halip, tipong ang saya!  to see the mayora taking matters into her own hands, lol.  para kasing, ah, di makuha sa pakiusapan, square na lang.  how macho, and why not, if that’s what it takes, when all else fails?

on second thought, hindi “square” yon, ano? dahil llamado si mayora not just because me hawi boys siya, but because on that level, wala namang lalaking papatol — unless siguro isang chavit singson ang nakatapat niya?

the best stuff i’ve read yet on sara and the sheriff is by randy david. excerpt:

I have watched this stunning knockout performance at least 10 times. I’m sure it has already been uploaded on YouTube. The clip shows a grim Inday Sara walking into a neighborhood that, just a few minutes before, was the scene of a violent clash between irate residents and the sheriff’s demolition team. Caught in the center of this skirmish, unable to maintain order, is a pathetic platoon of policemen armed with truncheons and shields. One of them is led away from the battle with an improvised arrow stuck on one leg.

The camera catches Sara striding into this charged and contested space. Clad in jeans, T-shirt, and sneakers, the city’s lady boss takes command without hesitation, projecting an authority that is entirely personal. She orders the police and the demolition team to stand down. Then she faces the angry mob of protesting residents and gives them a dressing down. Almost instinctively, at her order, they drop their improvised weapons and squat before her in a familiar sign of feudal submission. Alternately, she turns to the contending parties and berates them in a language punctuated by invectives. Everyone falls silent.

She then summons the sheriff who appears to have slunk into a corner, perhaps hoping to distance himself from the operation he had miserably bungled. As soon as he appears before her, she lectures him about his refusal to wait and, without warning, punches him in the face. Caught by surprise, her bodyguards restrain her and lead away the wretched target of her ire.

It is a long time since this country has witnessed a spectacle such as this. People will be talking about it for a long time. Public opinion will almost certainly be divided between those who would condemn the mayor, herself a lawyer, for placing herself above the law, and those who would praise her for not hesitating to take responsibility in a messy situation in order to restore the peace and avoid further injustice. The debate will pit people who understand the need for a strong godfather-like leadership in a society where the legitimacy of legal institutions is not secure, against those who would insist on the unconditional professionalization of governance.

From a strictly sociological standpoint, one can only stand in awe of the contradictions that are highlighted by this incident. Where you have a highly unequal society, the rule of law cannot be impartial. Its blind implementation will always appear harsh. Thus, instead of serving the ends of justice, law is perceived as one more tool of oppression. This uneven landscape creates ample room for the intervention of heroic equalizers. Instead of fading away in the transition, feudal leaders who can play this role extend their life span.

15 Responses to inday socked the sheriff! woot!

  1. July 3, 2011 at 4:36 pm

    actually, the “blind” implementation of the law will always be harsh. no escaping it, equality of income or not.

    we dont know anything about the background of this demolition. all we know is what the mayor has said. natural, ang side nya, siya ang bida.

    also, squatters are very much part of the flooding and pollution in urban areas. they need to be relocated.

  2. July 3, 2011 at 11:00 pm

    I was sort of hoping Randy David would make a call, whether he approved or disapproved the mayor’s behavior.

    Frankly I did not like it. I don’t want her to set an example She could have berated the sheriff, cussed him till she turned blue but physical violence is a no-no specially for public officials. It’s not okay for a public official to resort to violence unless it is for self-defense.

    • July 4, 2011 at 7:55 am

      i think its pretty clear, how david wrote the piece, where his sympathies lie.

      i want to hear the other side of the story. no one is reporting that.

  3. July 3, 2011 at 11:06 pm

    “The debate will pit people who understand the need for a strong godfather-like leadership in a society where the legitimacy of legal institutions is not secure, against those who would insist on the unconditional professionalization of governance.”

    I don’t think the other side is about “the unconditional professionalization of governance”. It’s not about professionalization, it’s about the rule of law. The debate is between those who believe in it and those who believe exceptions can or should be made.

  4. July 4, 2011 at 4:22 am

    “Where you have a highly unequal society, the rule of law cannot be impartial.”

    Our population is conditioned to expect a future that doesn’t change. The world is not round but layered. In the fairest of circumstances, inequality still exists, but situations are never stationary. What comes up must come down. This is how a free people think. The law is the one constant, your hard rock, foundation of a supposedly dynamic society.

    It’s better said that in the Philippines, social situation is permanent (with few exceptions) and our law is an institution of vagaries.

  5. July 4, 2011 at 1:08 pm
    • July 4, 2011 at 2:05 pm

      sabi ni cito “Petitioners or businessmen who acquire a favorable judgment and court order have been known to give “incentives” to Sheriffs for the immediate or speedy implementation of court orders.”

      akala ko ba, ang problema mabagal ang hustisya?

      so if its slow its a problem. if its just right, its still a problem.

      see? justice, esp the kind that punishes, must by definition, hurt SOMEONE.

  6. July 4, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    @manuelbuencamino :) in another blog re sara n sheriff, someone said something to the effect that in a country with an edsa 1 and 2, rule of law is iffy. i guess, setting aside rule of law is universally acceptable only if in non-violent context…

    • July 4, 2011 at 4:36 pm

      @angela I think the comparison is misplaced in that edsa1 and similar peaceful revolutions brought about the changing of one rule of law deemed unjust for another rule of law deemed just. What happened in the case of duterte is an act of lawlessness within an existing rule of law regime. Acts of lawlessness are for those who do not believe in the system, who are acting with the goal of overthrowing the system. But for everyone else who believe in the system then acts of lawless violence specially for public officials are a no-no.

  7. July 4, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    re cito beltran – what he says are what lawyers call mitigating circumstances. they do not in any way exonerate the mayor

  8. July 4, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    i wonder though how often this kind of sapakan happens involving public officials too but out of the eye of camera

    • July 4, 2011 at 11:02 pm

      I wonder about that too.

  9. July 5, 2011 at 8:58 am

    Yung hindi inaabot ng camera, hindi rin lang sapakan ang hinahantungan.

  10. July 5, 2011 at 11:36 am

    @willy: ay, oo nga!

  11. July 7, 2011 at 9:22 am

    Randy David’s statement says it loud and clear:

    “Instead of fading away in the transition, feudal leaders who can play this role extend their life span”.

    Its all about grandstanding at the expense of the sheriff, but what amazes is how the left can’t see beyond that and even cheered her on as the poor people saviour and heroine…. Juice ko poh! Sara did not even have any solution to the squatters problem and yet some thought she was really looking at the poor peoples welfare. She should leave her day job and pursue a career in boxing, I will surely be a fan of hers…. I just don’t know if she can hack it without bodyguards as that is not allowed inside the ring, LOL…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


follow @stuartsantiago on twitter
  • © Angela Stuart-Santiago