Right-doing July 19, 2006

I'M still overwhelmed by Achbishop Ramon Arguelles' comment that "everybody cheated in the last elections anyway, some merely lost in the cheating." I got to thinking about it a little more deeply, only to get a lot more dismayed.

At the very least, it's not true at all. I did not see Raul Roco cheat in the last elections. He was so finicky about accepting donations from people and demanded much idealism from potential supporters. He pissed off those who were asking explicitly or implicitly "What's in it for me?" and berated them. I did not see "Brother Eddie" Villanueva cheat in the lastelections. He too carried a fairly high-minded campaign appealing to the virtuous and promising moral regeneration.

I do not know how the campaigns of Fernando Poe Jr. and Panfilo Lacson went. I was not privy to them. I leave it to their camps to debate Arguelles' contention.

The only one I saw -- and heard -- cheat was Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. She was the one who gave fertilizer funds away, courtesy of an agriculture undersecretary aptly named Joc-Joc, to local officials who desperately needed only the kind of fertilizer that encouraged growth of scruples. She was the only one who personally, repeatedly and insistently called up Garci to make sure she won by one million votes over Fernando Poe Jr.

But more than the lack of factual basis of Arguelles' contention, there is its lack of moral principle. That contention of course is nothing new. I've heard it alike from Arroyo's supporters and from sectors of a public grown cynical. "Lahat naman sila mandaraya." ["They are all cheaters."]

It's a variation of what every crook in government, civilian and military, says when he is caught with his hands in the cookie jar. "Hindi lang naman ako ang magnanakaw." ["I'm not the only thief."] That was what Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia said when he was being hounded for spiriting away "gifts" from contractors. That's what Joseph Estrada said about the past presidents when he was being hounded for corruption. The past presidents, he suggested, were bigger crooks. Indeed, his tormentor, Chavit Singson, invented crookedness. He was probably right on both counts.

But you grant that perfidy is rife, why should that naturally lead to the conclusion, "Let's just accept it" or worse, "Let's just reward the best cheat or thief of them all"? The fact that others have committed the same crime, or worse, does not make one innocent, it only makes the others equally guilty. The fact that iniquity is rife is not an invitation to bemore lenient, it is a compulsion to be stricter. The fact that "everybody does it" cannot make us want to tolerate it, it can only make us want to stop it.

The proposition that a general and worsening condition of wrongdoing justifies more wrongdoing rather than demands right-doing is an engraved invitation to moral anarchy. But for some strange reason, that proposition seems to count for much in these parts. For some strange reason, we find it easier to emulate vice than virtue, stupidity than wisdom. For some strange reason, we find it easier to throw ourselves off a cliff like lemmings because everyone's doing it rather than step back and ask ourselves why in God's name anyone would want to do it.

You see that easily in street life. Some idiot usurps the opposite lane to get ahead of a long queue in traffic, and instead of those who have fallen in line sending curses in his direction, they trail him like a magnet.

It's absolute madness and it's time we changed our mind-sets completely, with or without the aid of our bishops.

Even if we accept the proposition that everybody usurps the opposite lane, which has no factual basis since more vehicles are in line than out of it, why should we conclude that it is all right to usurp lanes and let's just reward those who do? Even if we accept the proposition that everybody steals, which does have factual basis in government, finding an honest soul in it today poses more problems than Lot had with Sodom and Gomorrah,why should we conclude that it is all right to steal, and let's just fry the small fry and let the big ones get away?

Even if we accept that every candidate cheats in elections, and that has no factual basis, too, since more presidential candidates in the last elections did not cheat than did, why should we conclude that it is all right to cheat in elections and give glory to Gloria?

Why shouldn't our attitude instead be: Everybody's usurping the opposite lane of streets, why don't we line the errant drivers up the side of the street, or against the wall, whichever is the more terrifying, and fine them steeply, or allow traffic cops to extort from them, whichever will put the fear of God and traffic in them? Every government official steals, why don't we submit their names to all the robbers, kidnappers and con men in this country so they would gain profound insights into the meaning of being fleeced? (At this point, I'm even willing to unleash Alfredo Lim with the mandate to paint the houses of the crooks red, if not seal their occupants in metal drums and float them in the Pasig River, with the sign, "Magnanakaw: Huwag tularan." ["Thief: Don't be like him."]

Everybody cheats in elections, so why not jail the worst of them, notably the one that would stop at nothing, including kidnapping, to win? Why not replace the innumerate election commissioners with those who know how to count? Why not fly in an international group of observers, and fill the office of the Commission on Elections with all sorts of bugs duly approved by judges so that none of the commissioners could so much as break wind without it registering on the surveillance Richter scale?

In short, everybody does wrong in this country, why not stop it and do right for a change? Or is the "everybody" so literal, so absolute, so total, there's nobody left to do a thing about it?

http://opinion.inq7.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=10530

What coup? July 18, 2006

JUSTICE Secretary Raul Gonzalez’s intention clearly is to show how real the threat to the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo government is and how devious the people making those threats are. He now has proof, he says, that some 20 businessmen financed the threatened coup last February, which could be more if you counted those that gave the destabilizers aid and comfort. Indeed, it’s not just businessmen who are into this. The meeting in Jose “Peping” Cojuangco’s house that Nelly Sindayen mentioned in her Time article, says Gonzalez, was also attended by two high-ranking government officials. “Imagine having Cabinet-level officials attending such a conclave. It means these people are traitors and that is punishable by law.”

In fact, all Gonzalez succeeds in doing is to show how deeply alienated the government he is serving is and how, contrary to their own propaganda, the business community is not solidly behind them. I really would wish he would name those who financed or supported or sympathized with Danny Lim’s cause. At the very least it would show that Donald Duck does not speak for the businessmen, he merely speaks for himself. To go by the exact same words he said during Joseph Estrada’s time, pleading with the coup plotters that included Arroyo to give Estrada one more chance, as he was certain the fellow could experience a change of heart, his support for presidents is generic: He has a template expressing undying loyalty to the Big Boss with only the name of the Big Boss left blank.

At the very most, it would give the public to see the difference in quality between those trying to prop up an illegitimate regime and those trying to end it. I ardently hope Gonzalez reveals the names of the presumably errant businessmen and Cabinet officials so that we may compare them to Donald Duck and him. The Cabinet-level officials who plotted to overthrow Arroyo are traitors who may expect to be punished by law? They are patriots who may count on the undying gratitude of their countrymen!

But truly Gonzalez makes a spectacle of himself every time he invokes the law, which has the sensation of Garci calling his detractors liars. Shouldn’t he really be saying, representing as he does the majesty of the law: “Imagine a presidential candidate plotting like that with Garci! It means she is a traitor and that is punishable by firing squad!”? But then he wouldn’t have been justice secretary to begin with.

But my question remains: What coup? Or in relation to the above, what exactly were the businessmen and Cabinet officials whom Gonzalez threatens to identify financing, aiding, or coddling?

Shortly after ABS-CBN Broadcasting came out with a video of Lim speaking his mind out during his withdrawal of support on Feb. 23, several TV stations interviewed experts about the history of military intervention in public affairs in this country, specifically the coup attempts. Most of the guests agreed that the politicization of the military, which gave them a “praetorian mentality,” was the prime reason for these attempts.

They missed the point. There is a fundamental difference between the coup attempts of the past and Lim’s action, and one that goes well beyond the technicality of the phrase “withdrawal of support.” Two things stand out in particular.

One, the coup attempts of the past, notably the ones led by RAM against Cory, were attempts to overthrow a duly constituted authority, one directly and freely established by the people and enjoying the support of the people. The plotters did not mean to conscript public support for their cause—Cory enjoyed that support—they meant to seize power by force and defend it against the people by force. Had they won, they would have needed to pacify a restive public with arms afterward.

Lim’s withdrawal of support, on the other hand, was an attempt to overthrow an unduly-instituted authority, one directly and forcibly mounted by fraud. Lim’s statement harped on the use of the military to cheat the voters of their vote. The plotters did not just mean to enlist the public to their cause, they counted on it. Had they won, they would have needed to pacify their countrymen from their joyous, ecstatic and drunken revelry.

Two, and more importantly, there is an easy way to tell a coup from something else. A coup is an overthrow of government, with the plotters expressly intending to take over government. It isn’t just an overthrow of power, it is a seizure of power. That was what the RAM coup attempts of the past were: They meant to seize power from “the politicians,” who had presumably betrayed the dreams of Edsa People Power. And that was what Arroyo’s electoral plot was: She meant to seize power for herself and for no other reason than that she liked it.

Nowhere in his statement did Lim say he was going to run the government himself. Indeed, as the newspapers and TV stations subsequently reported, his idea was to bring a transitional government into being composed of people other than him. Indeed, civilians rather than generals.

But that’s the part, too, that I am unhappy about. I’ve always argued that any attempt to oust the current government -- or end the current junta -- by people power or any other means can only be justified on the basis of snap elections being called afterward. Not by any formal council, transitional or permanent. If the issue is illegitimacy, then the solution is legitimacy. That can only be supplied by new -- and clean -- elections. Anything else opens itself to charges of hidden agenda, personal interest, selfish motives. Indeed, anything else voids the cause for which ending an illegitimate government was undertaken. Why end an unelected rule only to set up another?

But right now, I’m all ears. Pray tell us, Mr. Justice Secretary, who are the coup plotters in our midst?

http://opinion.inq7.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=10358

More bishoprics July 17, 2006

THAT WAS A MIND-BOGGLING STATEMENT Archbishop Ramon Arguelles said last week to justify the decision of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines not to back the impeachment bid against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. “Talaga naman nandaya, e. Pero kahit nandaya, maliwanag naman na si Presidente ang nanalo. Hindi siguro one million (votes) pero siguro mga ilang hundred thousand.” (“Of course, GMA cheated. But even if she cheated, clearly she won the elections. Perhaps not by one million votes but by several hundred thousand.”)

Arguelles amplified on that point: “Lahat naman nandaya, e. Natalo lang ’yung iba sa dayaan.” (“Everyone cheated anyway. Some people just lost in the cheating.”)

Now if the two prosperous congressmen, Prospero Pichay and Prospero Nograles, had said that (and they have), I’d have chalked it up to their normal twisted thinking. But for an archbishop to mouth it, well, I did say before the faithful in this country was one lost flock being led by wayward shepherds. And they wonder why the faithful has become faithless.

What’s wrong with the statement is—everything. It betrays every canon of God and man.

At the very least, the notion that GMA (Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) won anyway even if she cheated is debatable. The “losers” have evidence to prove otherwise. They are simply being prevented from proving it. In the absence of a fair hearing—indeed given that Gen. Francisco Gudani and Col. Alexander Balutan are being court-martialed rather than given medals for wanting to tell the world what they know—how can anyone, let alone an archbishop, rule that “even if GMA cheated, clearly she won the elections”?

But that is nothing. In fact the only thing that is clear is that the bishops believe GMA cheated in the elections. Arguelles admits so. Now how on earth can anyone who has cheated in the elections possibly claim the highest position of the land by any law of God or man? Arguelles suggests that GMA would have won anyway even if she did not cheat. But my dear archbishop, if you are a teacher and you catch a student blatantly copying her classmate’s answers, what would you do—flunk her outright, or graduate her summa cum laude on the ground that she could have passed anyway even if she did not cheat? Surprisingly, the person who first raised this argument was a professor. You have professors and archbishops, the embodiments of reason and moral rectitude, arguing this way, heaven help us.

Arguelles argues further that everyone cheated anyway. Well, that is even more debatable. That GMA cheated is a fact; that everybody else did is a conjecture. Even the bishops agree to the first— “talaga naman nandaya, e.” Not everyone agrees to the second.

Indeed, even if you grant that everybody else cheated—and that takes blind faith to grant—at the very least there’s cheating and there’s cheating. Listen to the “Hello Garci” tape again and see if there is anything to compare to it. See if any past President of this country became so by personally, brazenly and repeatedly calling up a Comelec commissioner during the counting, demanding that she win by a million votes over her nearest rival whatever the cost, including kidnapping a public school teacher to prevent her from talking about the ballot-switching in her small and impoverished community.

At the very most, you grant that everybody else cheated, why, on earth or hell, should your conclusion be, sorry na lang for the people who lost in the cheating? What idiocy is that? If you are a professor and you catch your whole class cheating, do you reward the best, or worst, or most relentless cheater, or do you rail at the outrage, void the results and give a new exam with relentless monitoring to see that cheating doesn’t happen again? You are God’s representative on earth and you catch the candidates cheating in national elections, do you uphold the best, or worst, or most relentless cheater, or do you fulminate at the obscenity and demand that new elections be held with people who know how to count the results? Why should the bishops’ conclusion from the premise that everyone cheated be: “Sige, Gloria na lang, she leaves P15,000 in our vestry anyway.” (How cheap.) Why not: “Let’s have snap elections?”

What the hell has happened to us as a people? I mean, it’s not as if we’re talking about the position of kubrador for a bookie operation, we’re talking about the presidency. That position is sacred. How in God’s name—and I do not take his name in vain—can an archbishop, a symbol of moral rectitude, possibly say that he believes GMA cheated in the elections but she deserves to occupy that position anyway? What kind of governance can you expect from someone you yourself certify as a crook? Indeed, not just an ordinary crook who steals money, but a crook of crooks, who steals votes?

Not too long ago, this country defined “president” as the embodiment of the ideal Filipino, the repository of its cherished values. Today, this country defines president simply as someone it cannot prove to be a criminal. Not too long ago, this country expected a president to show exemplary behavior, or be transparent about it. Today, this country expects a president to do everything in her power to prevent others from showing she is a criminal. Not too long ago, this country expected its moral guardians to guard its morals. Today, this country expects its moral guardians to guard their hoard.

This isn’t just settling for crumbs, this is settling for s—t. Even beggars can be choosers and will run after hooligans who throw s—t rather than coins in their alms box. But hooligans throw s—t in our alms box, and we say, “Well, it’s not toxic.”

One is tempted to say this country has gone to the dogs. But it’s worse. It’s gone to the bishops.

http://opinion.inq7.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=10183

Sightings July 13, 2006

THE celebrations that erupted, or were whipped up, in the wake of Manny Pacquiao’s victory over Oscar Larios last week suddenly made me think of “aswang” (a kind of ghoul). Indeed, the whole phenomenon of Pacquiao becoming the quintessential Filipino hero, knocking off (pun intended, teeth flying and all) the self-effacing Efren “Bata” Reyes for the honor, made me think of aswang. That is not as facetious as it sounds.

Aswang sightings have a sanguine (pun intended as well, “komiks”-type blood-curdling gore and all) history in this country, appearing -- if sociologists are to be believed -- in dire times, when people are hungry and desperate. The “manananggal,” an underworld creature that leaves the lower half of its female body in some secret nook while its upper half forages for prey, drawn in particular by the smell of the unborn fetus, is the usual MFO, or much-identified flying object, there. On dark, rainy and moonless nights, or sometimes even in light, dry and moonlit ones, it can be seen in a haze swooping jaggedly across the skyline, or be heard flapping its wings as it alights on a roof.

The sightings normally take place in the countryside, but to go by reports on tabloids and (crime) TV, they have also been known on occasion to happen in the dark alleys of shantytowns. They galvanize the community to action, the local leaders organizing night vigils. I do not know if they hold torches aloft, like in the movies, or croak in imitation Transylvanian accents. I do know they scour secluded places in hopes of discovering the manananggal’s lair. The belief being that if the lower half of its body is laden with salt, the upper half would no longer be able to reconnect to it and perish in the sunlight.

I don’t know if any community has actually destroyed an aswang. The stories about the sightings disappear from the newspaper readers’ sight or the TV viewers’ view far more suddenly than the aswang themselves from the eyes of their spine-tingled beholders. But not after giving the community the satisfaction of having done something about a most monstrous threat to their lives, notably to that of their newborns or about-to-be-borns.

Sociologists explain it thus: It has nothing to do with people having hallucinations from hunger pangs. It has everything to do with people projecting their fears into something tangible that they can do something about. Life’s problems are far too complex and people are at their wits’ end trying to make sense of them, let alone solve them. Easier to fight aswang. For all their horrific aspects, the aswang can be vanquished with garlic, crucifix and (drunken) machismo. You defeat aswang -- the sign of victory being simply that they are no longer sighted after the vigil and vigilance -- you gain a token or vicarious victory over life’s problems.

Pacquiao’s feats, or fists, are not unlike that. Of course, there’s the aspect as well of his having become the ideal Filipino Everyman because he embodies the hopes of the bedraggled poor about how to escape their lot. Or quite literally how to fight their way out of their plight. It’s nothing new. Every impoverished Brazilian too -- and they are legion -- dreams of becoming another Ronaldo, a poor kid who used to play football barefoot in an obscure street in Rio and who went on to become one of the greatest players of the “beautiful game.” Which meant being fabulously rich apart from being fabulously famous. Not everyone can become a Ronaldo, or a Pacquiao, but as the song goes, “I can dream, can’t I?”

More than that -- which is the reason the current regime has capitalized on Pacquiao’s fortunes -- Pacquaio has also become, or been turned, into the token, vicarious, substitute way of dealing with the country’s problems. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s congratulatory words to Pacquiao after he beat Larios to a pulp were explicit in that thought. She wished, she said, that Filipinos would emulate Pacquiao and conquer their enemies, or their nation’s problems, with heart and fist. Of course, she did not compare herself to Larios when she exhorted her countrymen to do that.
Pacquaio’s enemies are not unlike aswang, however they take on rock-like solidity in the ring rather than flit about like phantoms in the night. For all their horrific aspects, particularly in the form of Marco Antonio Barrera, Juan Manuel Marquez and Erik Morales -- Larios was just cannon fodder -- they can be vanquished with blood and guts, heart and fist, muscle and machismo. Unlike grinding poverty whose solution is unknown and unknowable, the enemy is right there waiting to be pummeled. Unlike powerlessness whose solution is elusive and unclear, the enemy is right there waiting to be tackled. Unlike life’s problems, which are far too complex (people are at their wits’ end trying to make sense of them, let alone solve them), the enemy is identifiable, understandable, beatable.

I’m not knocking aswang and boxing as people’s ways of dealing with crushing reality. They are coping mechanisms, and heaven knows we all can do with ways to cope with the nightmarish pass we find ourselves in today. But the danger is when the projection becomes the injection, when the invention becomes the intervention, when the temporary illusion becomes the permanent reality. The danger is when the escape substitutes for the living. Aswang sightings have not been very plentiful these days but Pacquiao sightings, particularly in the form of ads, are so. That’s fine, so long as we do not forget that there are far more real aswang right there who have been sinking their fangs into our necks all this time; and far more vicious enemies who have been bludgeoning us to a bloody pulp all this time. We forget that, we’ll end up bled dry among the bushes of history.

We forget that, we’ll end up TKOed by life.

http://opinion.inq7.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=9503