james.soriano

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 17 June 2009 Issue (Page E-3)

---

We’ve seen some very strange things happen in this country, especially during the years of this administration.

We heard the President promise during her first term that she would not run for a second. Shortly after, we heard her voice on wiretapped telephone lines telling an election official to manipulate some votes in her favor. She is still the President now.

We watched as she declared a state of national emergency, and granted herself the power to take over privately-run public utilities, in response to the growing clamor for her resignation. We trembled in fear as it brought us back to another dark period in our history which began in the exact same way.

We witnessed as the First Gentleman, along with other public officials implicated themselves in a multibillion-dollar scandal with taxpayers’ money. We rallied behind the whistleblower who risked both life and reputation to bring the criminals to justice. We also looked on helplessly as they got away with it.

What’s terrifying is that this is the way it has always been.

Our country is no stranger to deception and betrayal. Our history is marred by strange events which have happened despite insurmountable obstacles, sometimes defying even logical possibility. The 1986 People Power Revolution is a very good example, but it is the only positive example I can think of. Most are negative.

Our independence from Spain we owe not only to the sacrifices made by our ancestors, but also to the invaluable help offered to us by the Americans. Unfortunately, by some strange oversight we did not realize that while we were busy “fighting for our freedom” in the streets, the Americans were negotiating with the Spaniards for the sale of our country in the halls of Malacanang Palace. Yet we greet each other “Happy Independence Day!” when history tells us it’s really more like a horrible not-joke: “Happy Independence Day…NAAAT!!”

And it’s not just our colonizers who have practiced deception on our people. History tells us that we have a penchant for deceiving our fellow countrymen if it serves to advance our personal interests. This was certainly the case when Emilio Aguinaldo had Andres Bonifacio executed, and when Antonio Luna was assassinated. We always eliminate the ones we love—wasn’t this the case when Joe de Venecia, the favored one, was ousted from the Speakership by the minions of the one who favored him?

So with history, both recent and ancient, telling us that this is the way it has always happened, I find it hard to believe that the Con-Ass issue would be any different, despite the fact that both laws and logic tell me that it is probably otherwise.

True, many experts say that the Supreme Court will probably rule against the resolution because the time is not yet ripe for Charter Change. But who is to say that is for certain? Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President, after all. What goes on behind these appointments is something we are not privy to. Not to mention that it was also the Supreme Court who legitimized the 1973 Constitution which was ratified by Marcos’ so-called “citizen’s assemblies.”

There is also that unknown variable, the Lozano complaint. Reason will tell us that the Supreme Court should dismiss his complaint because no legal ruling has happened yet. Yet if the courts consider his complaint, it could be a sign of danger.

Lozano has always proclaimed himself to be part of the opposition, but ironically, his moves have always favored the President politically. He has unwittingly(?) saved the President twice from impeachment due to his groundless complaints. He could save the President yet again—this time from an election.

Similarly, while the Senate seems impenetrable, there is no telling whether they can hold their ground. Many of the President’s most outspoken critics have been silent or have been silenced by scandals coming in their way. And if the Supreme Court rules in Con-Ass’s favor, it might serve as enough of an imperative for the more moderate senators to push for it.

Finally, we can always vote against Con-Ass in a plebiscite—but starting this year, elections are to be automated, and it is easy to program a “No” into a “Yes”.

But in the end, the most unsettling thing is the confidence of the congressmen. Our brightest minds have called their gamble and have called it stupid. But no one has the audacity to gamble on something that they know will certainly fail. And those who do usually have aces under their sleeve.

I think we should be scared of Con-Ass because stranger things have happened in this country.

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 10 June 2009 Issue (Page E-4)

---

Reason tells me that there is no cause to panic about the Con-Ass resolution passed by the House of Representatives just over a week ago. Many of our best and brightest legal and political minds have said the same thing, despite the distateful manner in which the procedure was handled, and the widespread public outcry that accompanied it. My head agrees with theirs.

There is simply no way that the Lower House, even if supported by the President, can outmatch the combined powers of the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the People. The very nature of our government, and the laws that govern it, already ensures this. GMA is still vying for the power to change the law; she has not changed it yet.

Our constitution will tell us that a Con-Ass, or the amendment of the constitution through our senators and congressmen, is only possible if three-fourths of the entire legislative branch, or ‘Congress’, vote to approve it. Only then is it possible for both the Lower House and the Senate to meet as a single body—a Constituent Assembly—to make changes to the constitution.

But there are three formidable lines of defense that the Administration must overcome in order for the Con-Ass to be successful.

The first wall is the approval of the resolution, manned by the Supreme Court.

There are two conflicting ways to interpret the “three-fourths of Congress” clause. Simply speaking, our congressmen choose to play it by numbers, arguing that the statement should be taken as it was written. On the other hand, our senators contend that both Lower House and Senate should achieve a three-fourths vote separately. This is consistent with the way the writers of our constitution intended our Congress to be, which is bicameral: a precise way of saying both houses have an equal say.

Since our congressmen pretty much forced the resolution despite objections from the Senate, it is the Supreme Court who will decide whether their interpretation is valid. To derail the Con-Ass, the Supreme Court can rule against it, which is what some legal experts say they will do. Or they can delay their ruling until after the elections—in other words, not rule at all.

But even if the courts rule in the congressmens’ favor, they’ll have a second wall to siege: the Senate.

And the Senate is impenetrable. They have already passed a resolution opposing the Con-Ass initiative. Without the Senate’s approval, no amendments to the constitution can be passed.

Fr. Bernas, SJ, a key member of that fateful committee responsible for our current constitution, put it very cleverly: “Congress is already a constituent assembly. So that even if today they want to propose amendments, they can propose it now, pero dapat ipasa sa Senado…Congress consists of two Houses. The House cannot say ‘we are Congress’ because Congress is the House and the Senate.”

In so many words, he was saying that the amendments they propose will have to undergo the same double examination that bills and laws currently go through. This is only logical, since constitutional provisions are more far-reaching than ordinary legislation. Fr. Bernas, then, is confirming one very important fact: legally, it is impossible for the Lower House to override the Senate.

But it is impossible even practically speaking. Assuming a Con-Ass convenes, both houses will still have to agree on a budget for a plebiscite—a popular vote. But there is no money for a plebiscite, and Senate can always disapprove of the budget.

Yet if all obstacles are still steamrolled in the name of power, there is still the final wall: the people.

The amended constitution can only pass if majority of the voting population ratifies it via a plebiscite. With the fate of our constitution in our hands, I have a feeling that we won’t.

For the only way they can get that far is to commit crimes of epic proportions, disregarding both laws and practical constraints. Last time I checked, we didn’t vote for people who committed crime, especially when crime was committed in our presence.

Our reaction to their ‘useless’ resolution should be enough of an indication.

No matter which way I look at it, there seems to be no reason to panic about the Con-Ass resolution. There is simply no way that an army of fat dwarven congressmen, led by their mole-faced hobbit queen, can scale the high walls of the people, the Senate, and the judiciary. My mind tells me that there is no reason to fear.

But my intuition tells me something different.

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 3 June 2009 Issue (Page E-4)

---

Just over a week ago, on the morning of May 23, a man decided to end his life by jumping off a cliff. The man, who was in his early sixties, had been taking a hike when he threw himself off a mountainside near the village of Bongha in South Korea. He sustained numerous fatal injuries to the head and was immediately brought to the nearest hospital. He was pronounced dead an hour later.

After his suicide was confirmed by police, his lawyer told reporters that he had left a brief suicide note for his family, saying that life has been difficult and apologizing for making too many people suffer. His note was later published in full by Yonhap News, a South Korean news firm, from whose website I have taken the note. The important parts read as follows:

“I have owed to too many people. The amount of burden I have caused them is too great…The rest of my life would only be a burden for others…It is fate. Cremate me. And leave only a small tombstone near home. I’ve thought of this for a while.”

The man was Roh Moo-hyun, president of South Korea from 2003 to 2008. A clean politician who served uprightly during his term, his reputation took a recent hit due to a corruption scandal involving members of his family and staff. Based on the suicide note, the former champion of clean governance had apparently been driven to suicide by the humiliating allegations.

His death unleashed a renewed wave of public support, accompanied by ire at the current administration which unforgivingly pursued their accusations against Roh and his family. In a country where it has become a tradition for incumbent presidents to garner public support by demonizing the former one, this isn’t at all surprising.

At least Roh, who did much to weaken the cycle of corruption that had been entrenched in the office, took responsibility for the misdeeds committed in his name.

His family had reportedly received six million from a businessman, although he has insisted that these were not bribes, and the transactions were made without his knowledge. In comparison, his predecessors had been found personally guilty of laundering hundreds of millions of dollars. Many of his supporters feel that he had paid too high a price for a relatively smaller offense, if it could be called one.

I neither condone nor condemn what Roh did, but I am deeply affected by what his act symbolized.

I guess it’s because it’s rare nowadays to find people at the highest echelons of government who would truly take responsibility for the crimes they have committed, and I don’t mean that in the way you orchestrate an “apology” on national television out of political expediency. It’s one thing to apologize as a way to garner public support, and it’s an entirely different one to apologize and mean it—to the point that you would end your life for it.

But what’s interesting is that Roh lived in a society that puts a very high premium on saving face, and so the essence of what Roh did wasn’t very surprising. He was expected to feel shame and take responsibility for the accusations. It is only shocking because our societies have long since outgrown the practice of discarding one’s life to save one’s honor.

In contrast, our society is one that is policed by feelings of guilt, based on a fear of violating established codes of ethics and morality. It is quick to condemn and pass judgment on our actions, branding us as sinful or evil when we commit them. Yet it seems as if this only encourages people to hide their wrongdoings instead of owning up to them.

It’s sad, considering that our basis for accountability is based on “stronger”, more internal foundations of morality and conscience, instead of “superficial” and external notions of embarrasment and losing face.

In a society such as Roh’s, where everyone is seen to have a specific duty or role, one’s fall from grace is irredeemable, and it is only in self-punishment that one maintains his or her self-respect before others. In ours, where everyone is seen as basically free and equal, a person’s fall from grace can be redeemed by forgiveness, but the fear of being labelled serves as the incentive to cover up for misdeeds.

Roh’s act may have been extreme, but the essence of what he did was not. He was simply doing what any decent human being would, and that is to take responsibility for his mistakes. It’s tragic in an entirely different way: he has become a hero for doing what he was supposed to do.

Is it so much nowadays to expect people, especially those assuming positions of power, to do what they are supposed to?

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 20 May 2009 Issue (Page F-4)

---

I stumbled upon the words “synthetic democracy” last weekend, while running through my daily digest of news websites and articles. It was in an article entitled “Puno: Oligarchs still rule,” which dealt mainly with some remarks the Chief Justice made during the launch of the Moral Force Movement last Friday night.

I decided to google it. The article aside, I found two other directly related links. The first was a political psychology paper whose abstract was enough to make my brain bleed. The second was an amusing video skit satirizing democracy, though the point is radically different from what Puno was trying to stress. It doesn’t seem to be a defined term in any field of study, but the way he said it, it may well have been a real one.

He used the words “synthetic democracy” to point out what could happen if we didn’t elect the right leaders. I think it could be used to describe the unique problem our country faces.

According to Merriam-Webster, ’synthetic’ is used to describe something that involves the nature of synthesis, or the process of combining separate elements to form a coherent whole, as in chemistry or philosophy. It can also used to describe something artificial or counterfeit, from and can be used to form negative connotations. In both senses, the term ’synthetic democracy’ is perfectly accurate.

Our democracy is founded on the principles of fairness and equality. It is thus designed to maximize the participation of its members, all of whom having different, even conflicting interests. In other words, our political system is designed to be the sum of its parts, where all people’s interests are protected, reconciled, or heard out, at the very least. By its very nature, our democracy is synthetic, striving to combine several distinct groups and interests to form a civilized, ordered society that functions for the good of its members.

But when we look at which parts are integrated, and to what extent, our system exposes itself for what it really is—a machine that has been re-engineered to serve the interests of those who have the resources and know-how to operate it.

It starts with the people who are allowed to participate in the political game. The government is the territory of the trapos, who see their positions not as an instrument of public will, but as a business or career venture to further cement their own wealth and status. The field is dominated by those who have entrenched themselves so deeply in the system that they have become powerful enough to control its’ workings. These people, of course, have no interest in changing this state of affairs, for they would have something to lose.

These distorted values, in turn, have created the culture in which our system operates. Politicians are encouraged to enact policies or lobby for interests which ensure that they also benefit. Deals and alliances are only made on the expectation that the spoils will be shared. Newcomers who enter the system are either indoctrinated or forced to depart.

Conversely, there is no incentive to act differently. Constituents are almost always relatively powerless against their representatives, who can use a variety of different means to silence their critics. And if they resort to the law, it is always easy to manipulate the law. Or to “remind” those who control it that they benefit by protecting you.

When it comes to the public, the same mindset operates. Policies and regulations favor the highest bidders. This is evident when we take a look at the interests that our governments protect, prioritize, and pander to: the land-owners, the foreign multinational companies, those who own the commanding heights of the economy. As for those who are not blessed with either name, riches, or connections, their interests are often deemed secondary, especially when up against interests more powerful than theirs. There is no incentive to help the lower classes because the lower classes can’t contribute to the politician’s pocket.

Unfortunately, many of us belong in that segment.

Our country is governed by a synthetic democracy. The system is designed to maximize the benefits of the privileged members, who have different, even conflicting, interests from the many who are not. It is the sum of its parts, with some parts being larger than the others. It combines several distinct groups and interests to form a society that functions for the good of the few.

What our country has is a democracy that has been deprived of its essence. What we have been left with is a democratic system that has lost sight of its goals and principles, an animated body that has been deprived of its soul—a zombie of democracy.

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 15 April 2009 Issue (Page E-2)

---

The state of literal and moral corruption in Philippine politics has worsened so much that it has become necessary for civil society to point out the obvious.

It is a lot like having a friend who has the habit of picking his nose in public: while both of you (supposedly) understand that it’s unpleasant, you would never tell him that he is wrong to his face, but at some point it will gross you out enough to make you snap and point out that it is unsightly.

Thus, in the spirit of pointing out bad habits, Chief Justice Reynato Puno has assembled various credible members of different social sectors to form a Moral Force Movement—a League of Extraordinarily Upright Gentlemen, if you will. Their mission is to “focus on defining and electing transformational leaders in the coming 2010 elections,” and “to stop moral decadence.” And in the interests of keeping his Justice League credible and apolitical, he has told politicians to “lay off” his movement.

Sadly, I find this interesting for all the wrong reasons.

To begin with, this is not the first time we have called for a ‘moral revolution.’ In fact, they have happened before: we’ve had two People Powers, maybe three, depending on how you feel about the Erap administration. The first one was initiated primarily by the call of the Church, and the second was inspired by political gestures. The common element is that people already knew what was wrong, and were sick of it; they just needed someone to point out that the government was proverbially picking its nose.

Since then, we have put in place two female Presidents, the first of whom was an icon of virtue, but eventually lost her persuasive moral power after being involved in too much politics. She would also prove, retrospectively, that the most upright people don’t necessarily make for the best presidents. The second one is an icon of… never mind.

We have since also had a priest who ran successfully for governor—and has now declared his intentions to run for the presidency. Recently, we have had numerous bishops and civil society groups call for moral change, the latest manifestation of which is the literal Justice League led by the Chief Justice. Some movements succeed, and some don’t.

Another thing that rubs me is this whole notion of defining ‘transformational leaders.’ On the more obvious level, I believe it is unrealistic, since good leaders are more effectively identified than they are defined. Any list of important ideal characteristics inevitably fall short when measuring true-to-life leaders. Besides, it is largely a matter of image.

Which leads me to the less obvious point: definitions can be politicized. Considering how predatory our media and political culture can get, associations to particular public figures will inevitably appear. When this happens, it will either be that this movement loses its credibility, or that we elect the candidates who emerge victorious in the ensuing publicity contest.

This is why it was important for Chief Justice Puno to swear off his ambitions for the presidency in 2010. If he didn’t, I would have been suspicious of this movement. And even then, our current President has taught us that you can never trust someone who declares that he or she is not running in an election.

Finally, I question: assuming that people jump on the bandwagon, how much of an impact can it make on our choices in the next election? I am inclined to believe that genuine changes will be superficial. Change will happen in the way candidates market themselves: they will try to show that they live up to the standards. But this is what candidates do in each election, so it is only the variables of their campaign strategy that will be different.

Even that is an optimistic projection: guns and money talk louder than a list of standards do.

In light of these doubts, I find their choice of name ironic. The term ‘moral force’ has always been used to describe an efficient incentive, or a positive motivational influence. But the biggest moral force in our country has been calling for moral revolutions for as long as I can remember, and they seem to have lost enough touch for a new movement to step in. And even then, I’m not sure that the movement is an efficient incentive or a positive influence. At worst, I can see them being efficient incentives for negative influences.

Belief in superheroes is absurd because superheroes don’t exist. But I guess someone has to play the superhero, if no one else will.

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 28 January 2009 Issue (Page E-3)

---

In all my eighteen years, I have never seen a president-elect who was as enthusiastically received as Barack Obama was when he was sworn into office. His inauguration was such a big thing that even people in my age group, who don’t normally give a damn about politics, stayed up to watch it. Nowadays, we would only do that for DVD marathons or concerts. It makes you wonder why that is.

My own opinion is that Obama’s case is special for two reasons.

The first is that his presidency comes at a time when things could not be bleaker. This makes his spirited reception all the more surprising. Obama’s predecessor may have been cooperative in helping him make the transition, but he also left a ton of trash for him to clean up. Among that sea of garbage is a messed up war, a botched foreign policy, and a mismanaged economy. It is perhaps unfortunate that he’s got his work cut out for him by this much.

The second is that Obama continues to defy the realms of possibility. Here is a name that was virtually unheard of in the political arena five years ago. Now, he is perhaps the biggest name in all the arenas, political or otherwise, which you can imagine. He is so charismatic that he invites comparisons to Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, and even Abraham Lincoln. Add to that the fact that he is an African American, one who was once even criticized for not being “black enough” because he had Caucasian blood. His success is downright intriguing, to say the least, but intriguingly enough, it is also inspiring.

It is because of these two reasons, the impossibility of his odds and the improbability of his achievements, that he inspires hope within the rest of us.

I believe that’s the most important commodity we have nowadays. We live in a time where even rich people become homeless and nations get bankrupt. If this is the way the things are going to be over the next few years, it’s going to be hard for a lot of us to keep on living. But if money isn’t going to make the world go ’round, then we need something else to back on.

I guess this is what Obama understood about his presidency. He understands that he will take the front in a time when change is so real it’s so hard to believe in. Even so, expectations of him are nothing short of monumental. And if he is going to succeed—indeed, survive—in his presidency, he knows that the first thing he must do is to rally his people. That is why in his inauguration speech, he focused on “the faith and determination of the American people, upon which this nation relies.”

Nothing inspires people better than the knowledge that you believe in them.

Deflecting expectations aside, his story in itself is something we can draw hope from. Toward the end of his speech, he talked about equality, the spirit of democracy. “This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed,” he said, “Why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.”

If he can overcome the odds, then we can, too.

As for us, the people who will soon inherit the world, he is a person we can look up to. I think it’s admirable that he tries to present his best face without being hypocritical, such as in his ongoing effort to quit smoking. In a world where it has become so easy to set morals aside, he reminds us that there is still value in being persons of integrity and character.

In the end, Obama’s election is a reminder that good still wins in this world, that there is space for hope in these trying times. No one can say for certain what the future will bring, but I am certain of one thing.

There is at least one change we can believe in.

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 17 December 2008 Issue (Page G-2)

---

At the Ayala Avenue-Paseo de Roxas junction in Makati last Friday afternoon, the multi-sectoral rally against Charter Change proved at least two things.

First, that rallies still work– sort of. During the days that followed, the Senate voted to junk the Constitutional Assembly, and House Speaker Prospero Nograles declared a ‘ceasefire’ on moves to amend the Constitution.

Second, it proved that people still cared. Well, some people, at least. The multi-sectoral rally did live up to its name. It drew a wide spectrum of protesters, from priests to politicans, capitalists to conservatives, students to street people. It was, on a miniature scale, almost ideally representative. Despite the disillusionment that pervades society when it comes to issues of politics, it is encouraging to know that some people still care about whether our government is doing the right thing.

It didn’t occur to me that it happened last Friday, though, until I came home that same night, when I came home to the sound of my parents watching TV Patrol in the living room, and in my head I blurted out, “Oh, that was today?” I guess I had been too preoccupied with my academic work the past week to be able to keep abreast with national news. I had the television turned off on most nights.

But the truth is, I consciously avoid following news on national politics whenever I can help it, which unfortunately isn’t very often because there is only one place at home to study in, and that place is where my parents watch the evening and midnight news, whichever is on by the time they arrive. Part of me is disenchanted whenever I hear talk on political squabbles or scandals or Charter Change, because it seems to me that nothing positive ever happens. But alas, due to ANC being on all the time, I am regrettably quite informed, and very disillusioned.

I used to be one of those young people who actively kept aware, though. I used to stay up to watch congressional sessions and impeachment votings, even if the results were mostly in favor of the Administration. But besides that, I used to make myself heard: I aired out my views to classmates and friends, whether or not they gave a damn, I blogged my positions, and I tried to join demonstrations whenever it was within my means to do so.

Nowadays I just sit around and watch re-runs of old sitcoms. I figure my voice won’t matter in the end. This issue proves my point.

It isn’t so much that amending the Constitution is such a horrible thing to do, it’s that they’re amending it for all the wrong reasons.

For one thing, this isn’t the first time that the Administration has brought it up. In fact, if my memory serves, they bring it up at least once every year. Not only that, they’re intent on making it happen before election time arrives, before her term expires. It’s been shot down again, but I’m wiling to bet a million bucks that it will come back to life by the time next year rolls around. This issue is turning out to be immortal.

For another, the method which they advocate to do it with, a constituent assembly, seems suspect. Loosely speaking, it will bring both the Senate (24 senators), and the House of Representatives (250 congressmen), the two houses of Congress, together in a meeting to vote on charter change. If three-fourths of all the members (198 votes) vote in favor of it, then amendments can be made to the Constitution. It would be fairly easy to predict how this one will go.

Somehow, I find it hard to convince myself that this little charade is for anything else than to keep some people in power.

Of course, it’s not like my voice will matter. My congressmen haven’t asked me whether I would be in favor of Cha-Cha, and I doubt they’ve asked anyone else who isn’t in government. I’ll have to wait until 2010– if we ever get there.

It’s thoughts like these that make me wish I had switched to another channel.

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 15 October 2008 Issue (Page F-4)

---

Is anyone beyond pardon?

In answering that question, perhaps the case of Claudio Teehankee, Jr. would be a good place to start. Should he be pardoned? He’s rich and influential; no less than the son of one of the great chief justices in Philippine history. He clearly committed a heinous crime, and he has (purportedly) not shown any signs of remorse. He is, in short, the perfect example of a person whom you shouldn’t pardon.

There are other issues as well. Many have complained that the process was not transparent. Some individuals have even claimed that money changed hands in this case. The victim’s family declared that they were not informed. It seems glaringly evident to everyone that this is not just a case of a lapse in judgment—this was a deliberate act of political indiscretion.

In fact, no matter what way you look at it, this can’t be anything but political. Our very own Justice Secretary did admit that Teehankee’s brother, ambassador and representative to the WTO, ended up being a factor in the decision. Considering how even impeached Presidents get pardoned nowadays, I guess the issue is not just about one deliberate act of political indiscretion, but rather, a whole system founded on it.

Also, we shouldn’t forget about the victims’ families. If there is anyone against whom this crime has been committed, it is to them, who are in themselves victims, first and foremost. Why should they—or we—forgive him? Some things that have been taken away can never be returned. If it were our friend, our parent, our brother or sister, whose life had been taken on a whim, would we not feel the same way? We don’t have to undergo their experiences to be able to grasp they are experiencing. Forgiveness does not come easily for wounds that will never heal.

If so, then is every other pardon just as objectionable?

A decade ago, a lot of controversy surrounded the case of Flor Contemplacion, who purportedly murdered a fellow OFW as well as the son of their Singaporean employer. We claimed that she was framed, that she was innocent. We demanded that she be pardoned. Our then-president went so far as to personally appeal her execution sentence. It was denied. Her execution strained our country’s relations with Singapore for some time. Even if the facts of the case were never fully established to us, our then-president went so far as to call her a hero.

But in contrast to Teehankee, Flor Contemplacion was a poor Filipina forced into an abusive working condition. If so, then is pardon simply a question of race or social class?

Say a poor, oppressed farmer murdered his usurious landlord, who happened to be a wealthy and corrupt politician. Assuming he did his country a favor, does that make his murder any less objectionable? Would you call him a hero? Would you think twice about saying that he deserves pardon?

Maybe it would help us answer the question if we turned our assumptions around for a minute. Let’s say that pardon is acceptable and justifiable under certain circumstances. If our administration can do it, and regularly, for the rich and influential, then it is fair to say that the same standard should be applied for those who are poorer.

But assuming there was a case parallel to Teehankee’s, where the murderer a poor drunkard, the victims in question from the slums and the scene of the crime was in an obscure street alley rather than a high-class subdivision. Would that man have a right to be pardoned, too? Would there be an outcry if our president pardoned him?

In the end, however, the question of pardon is about morality, more so than about politics, race, or social class. It extends to our conscience as individuals who live in a state which respects rights, including the benefit of the doubt.

But if we were to talk about morality, then it goes back to the question: Is anyone beyond forgiveness?

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 1 October 2008 Issue (Page E-3)

---

I’ve been looking forward to the Obama-McCain debate for quite some time now, but I must say that after watching CNN’s coverage of it last Saturday, I was rather disappointed.

I expected someone to take the lead in this campaign, but no one did. More emphasis was seemingly put on antagonizing the other candidate’s stances than on a fruitful discussion about policies. In particular, the debate became very intense when it came to the issue of Iraq and the Middle East. Obama continued to depict McCain as a supporter of the Bush administration; McCain continued to paint Obama as an inexperienced candidate. Afterwards, both campaigns released statements saying that their candidate had won. I don’t know who to believe.

Nonetheless, if there’s anything I admire about the political culture of the United States, it’s the fact that citizens continue to value these kinds of exchanges. Debates are an excellent avenue for presenting platforms and comparing policies. As far as government goes, these are the most important things we need to look out for when we elect a country’s leaders.

Funnily enough, while we’ve based much of our own system of government on theirs, this tradition of discussing platforms and policies through an intellectual clash is something that we’ve never inherited.

In our country, not much value is placed on the practice of debate in elections. Instead, our political culture (if it exists) is obsessed with pandering to images– and images only.

In the Philippines, the practice of elections approximates American Idol: it is mostly a battle of personalities. It explains why campaign jingles work, why actors win, and why few candidates seems to pay attention to making a real platform– which might also account for why there are no political parties here in the real sense of the word. We might as well turn elections into a reality show.

Then again, it’s not like there’s much we can do about that. If it’s true that history repeats itself, then this phenomenon of voting for the most handsome candidate is merely a repetition of how we used to select our datus based on who seems most charismatic. It’s all just a cycle that will continue to recur, and there is nothing we can do to change it.

Also, the idea of making Juan de la Cruz listen to some boring debate about whether candidates support the E-VAT is not quite as convincing as, say, the monetary ‘handouts’ that politicians would give to voters. The harsh realities of politics in the Philippines will continue to be there, and they will be much stronger forces than the force of reason.

It’s not like they’ll take these ideas seriously, anyway. Their ideas will not matter if they don’t put them into action. And it’s hard to put faith in a system that has promised us so many big things before, but have continued to fail us today.

But maybe that’s the problem. Since when did ‘progress’ or ‘poverty elimination’ become platforms? Why does no one ever talk about concrete measures, like the reform of relief programs, the passing of laws, or the repealing of policies? Allow me to be crazy and say that the reason why we there is no hope is because we’re not given something real to believe in.

I believe that there is a value in re-engineering the way we think and go about elections. I believe that more emphasis should be placed on the platforms and ideas put forth by candidates, instead of selecting leaders based on, literally, face value. I believe that there is room for the growth of a real political culture in the Philippines, that this will eventually ensure that we select the appropriate people for office. I believe that while there are many obstacles along the way, it is not yet too late to start. It took four centuries for the United States to get to where they are, and I think we have the capacity to do the same.