President Rodrigo Duterte on Saturday took back his pronouncement of a ceasefire vis-à-vis the CPP-NPA-NDF. This was a mere five days after declaring it in his first State of the Nation Address.
Duterte expressed irritation when a member of the Cafgu was killed in an encounter with the NPA in Mindanao after his SONA speech. After the death, he gave the CPP until 5 p.m. of Saturday for their side to declare their own ceasefire conduct.
The CPP pleaded with Duterte not to rush things, reasoning that the government itself was only able to effectively operationalize the ceasefire a few days after Duterte's declaration of it. But when the CPP was not able to meet Duterte's 5 p.m. deadline, the president acted on his ultimatum.
Something is wrong here. There is no reason to doubt the CPP's statement that it were the state forces that were violating the ceasefire and that the NPA acted only in self defense. The CPP has only been too willing to cooperate with Duterte in the past months.
Duterte is receiving his reports from the Armed Forces of the Philippines, whose troops he has been paying tribute to through visits over the past week. The Armed Forces of the Philippines has never been known to be fair and transparent organization. It is a significant human rights violator, known for killing activists working in the open legal mass movement.
But what is most telling in this is Duterte's apparent unreasonableness in dealing with the CPP. Giving the CPP an "ultimatum" is not a very diplomatic way to treat a movement carrying very legitimate issues. It is counterproductive because it puts the CPP with its back against the wall over a very flimsy premise. If Duterte were serious with the ceasefire proclamation, he would not have made a move that could only antagonize the CPP. All of this puts Duterte's sincerity with the ceasefire pronouncement into question.
Duterte's treatment of the CPP as showcased here bodes ill for the entire Philippine Left, not just the CPP. If Duterte can act so aggressively with an organization that has this much clout, how much more harshly will Duterte treat other smaller Leftist/Socialist groups in the country?
And at a time when the killings through the state's armed elements are growing rampant, a peek into how impulsive and fascist Duterte could be is troubling. Duterte has already shown that he has little regard for human rights. Will those opposing his regime's human rights conduct be as aggressively treated as the CPP? Will their voices not be heard?
The Philippine Left should condemn Duterte's conduct in this whole affair. It could be that we are witnessing a very dangerous representative of the Philippine ruling class in the making.
Sunday, July 31, 2016
Saturday, July 30, 2016
BREAKING: Duterte revokes ceasefire with communist rebels
MANILA – President Rodrigo Duterte said he revoked a ceasefire with communist rebels after the insurgents failed to reciprocate his declaration at the end of a 24-hour deadline on Saturday.
Duterte had sought to bring the rebels back to the negotiating table in an effort to end one of the world’s longest-running Maoist insurgencies that has claimed 30,000 lives since the 1960s.
"Let me now announce that i am hereby ordering for the immediate lifting of the unilateral ceasefire that i ordered last July 25 against the communist rebels," Duterte said in a statement.
"I am ordering all security forces to be on high alert and continue to discharge their normal functions and mandate to neutralize all threats to national security, protect the citizenry , enforce the laws and maintain peace in the land,"
Formal talks were scheduled to begin in Oslo, Norway on August 20. It was not immediately known whether this would push through.
Duterte issued the ultimatum after a government militia man was killed and four others were wounded in what the military said was an ambush by the NPA in the southern province of Compostela Valley last Wednesday. The rebels owned up to the attack, but said they were thwarting an Army offensive.
The NPA, the armed wing of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), is believed to have fewer than 4,000 gunmen at present, down from a peak of 26,000 in the 1980s, according to the military.
But it retains support among the poor in rural areas, and its forces regularly kill police or troops while extorting money from local businesses and politicians. -- with reports from Agence France-Presse
http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/07/30/16/duterte-revokes-ceasefire-with-communist-rebels
Duterte had sought to bring the rebels back to the negotiating table in an effort to end one of the world’s longest-running Maoist insurgencies that has claimed 30,000 lives since the 1960s.
"Let me now announce that i am hereby ordering for the immediate lifting of the unilateral ceasefire that i ordered last July 25 against the communist rebels," Duterte said in a statement.
"I am ordering all security forces to be on high alert and continue to discharge their normal functions and mandate to neutralize all threats to national security, protect the citizenry , enforce the laws and maintain peace in the land,"
Formal talks were scheduled to begin in Oslo, Norway on August 20. It was not immediately known whether this would push through.
The NPA, the armed wing of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), is believed to have fewer than 4,000 gunmen at present, down from a peak of 26,000 in the 1980s, according to the military.
But it retains support among the poor in rural areas, and its forces regularly kill police or troops while extorting money from local businesses and politicians. -- with reports from Agence France-Presse
http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/07/30/16/duterte-revokes-ceasefire-with-communist-rebels
REPOST: WALA PANG DAPAT IPAGDIWANG, NAPAKARAMING DAPAT GAWIN
(Ang orihinal na post ng Partido ng Manggagawa ay nandito.)
Sa totoo lang ay mas nabigyan ng kapanatagan ang mga kompanya at ang kanilang mga partner na manpower agencies/cooperatives sa inilabas na dalawang kautusan ng DOLE. Ito ang Labor Advisory 10, Series of 2016 at Department Order 162, Series of 2016.
Ang Labor Advisory 10 ay naglilinaw lamang sa depenisyon at prohibisyon ng labor only contracting (LOC) ayon sa mga elementong titinakda Labor Code. Ang aktwal na pagsasakatuparan ng mga ito ay sa gagawing deklarasyon ng DOLE regional directors sa pagiging LOC ng mga contractor/sub-contractors sa kanilang hurisdiksyon. Magsasagawa pa lamang sila ng imbentaryo, bagay na maaring nagawa na nila noon pa, bago pa nila aprubahan ang nasabing mga kontrata ayon sa pamantayang itinakda ng DO 18-A. At kung mag-iimbentaryo sila ngayon, parehong pamantayan ang gagamitin dahil wala pang bagong batas o amyenda sa DO 18.
Sa totoo lang ay mas nabigyan ng kapanatagan ang mga kompanya at ang kanilang mga partner na manpower agencies/cooperatives sa inilabas na dalawang kautusan ng DOLE. Ito ang Labor Advisory 10, Series of 2016 at Department Order 162, Series of 2016.
Ang Labor Advisory 10 ay naglilinaw lamang sa depenisyon at prohibisyon ng labor only contracting (LOC) ayon sa mga elementong titinakda Labor Code. Ang aktwal na pagsasakatuparan ng mga ito ay sa gagawing deklarasyon ng DOLE regional directors sa pagiging LOC ng mga contractor/sub-contractors sa kanilang hurisdiksyon. Magsasagawa pa lamang sila ng imbentaryo, bagay na maaring nagawa na nila noon pa, bago pa nila aprubahan ang nasabing mga kontrata ayon sa pamantayang itinakda ng DO 18-A. At kung mag-iimbentaryo sila ngayon, parehong pamantayan ang gagamitin dahil wala pang bagong batas o amyenda sa DO 18.
Ang DO 162 naman ay nagsususpinde lamang sa aplikasyon ng mga bagong contractor at sub-contractor habang ang mga existing contracts "shall be respected" and "shall not be impaired". Ibig sabihin, tuloy ang mga dating kontrata, maliban lamang kung ito ay irevoke ng Secretary of Labor o ng kanyang duly-authorized representative. Ang praktikal na bunga nito ay kung may ikakansela nga bang existing contracts ang DOLE na klarong programa na kontraktwalisasyon ng mga kompanya.
Isang malaking kaso dito ay ang PAL. Nariyan din ang matagal nang sistema sa mga mall, EPZA, at marami pang iba.
Kaya tuloy-tuloy na pagbabantay at pakikibaka ang kailangan ng manggagawa dahil ang mga kapitalista ay kasabay nating nagtutulak ng proteksyon sa sariling interes.
At dito ay nauna na nga sila sa atin. Sulong-sugod pa mga kapatid!
Isang malaking kaso dito ay ang PAL. Nariyan din ang matagal nang sistema sa mga mall, EPZA, at marami pang iba.
Kaya tuloy-tuloy na pagbabantay at pakikibaka ang kailangan ng manggagawa dahil ang mga kapitalista ay kasabay nating nagtutulak ng proteksyon sa sariling interes.
At dito ay nauna na nga sila sa atin. Sulong-sugod pa mga kapatid!
Friday, July 29, 2016
The revolution will (not) be hastened
alright. let me tell you a story. start with 1968. form a party. form an army. craft complex theoretical work on this armed strategy. use armed struggle for 50 years.
then, wait for 2016. put your entire history on the line to ally with a man.
then, that man tells you: okay, so you lay down your arms. tomorrow.
then, wait for 2016. put your entire history on the line to ally with a man.
then, that man tells you: okay, so you lay down your arms. tomorrow.
Friday, July 22, 2016
Under the beat of the baton
In February, a few months before he would take the Philippine presidency in phenomenal fashion, Rodrigo Duterte was quoted as saying that he would grant pardon to law enforcers who might end up killing criminals while carrying out the new regime's social cleansing campaign.
This month, he repeated this statement. Only by this time, Duterte has also said he would double the pay of the members of the police force. Until that happens, the administration could significantly increase the police "hazard pay" for putting their lives on the line. Meanwhile, the drug war will continue, and any talk of an investigation into the alarming number of deaths will not be entertained.
At present, Philippine society is at war. It is officially a war against drugs -- a campaign to rid the nation of its dregs. It is being commandeered by a man we elected. And on its frontline is the national Police force, the people's supposed protector.
However, a look at the records will remind us of just what sort of institution it is that Duterte has chosen to be in the frontline of his campaign.
Just in 2014, Amnesty International published a report that reminded us about who the national Police is. “Torture is still rife, … the overwhelming majority of reports of torture involve police officers.” And yet the content of that report itself is not new. It merely put real faces into a phenomenon that is, as it wrote, the Philippine's “dark, open secret.”
Faces like those of Alfreda Disbarro, a former police asset who the police took and brought to a room. On top of her head, they placed a bottle which they threatened to blow to bits if she would not do what they wanted her to do. Later they forced a dirty mop into her mouth, while beating her on the side. They wanted Disbarro to admit to being a drug pusher.
The report presented data from the Commission on Human Rights which has recorded a total of 457 cases of torture all over the Philippines since 2001. The highest figure was in 2013 when 75 torture cases were reported, 60 of which implicated the Police. The Philippines passed an Anti-Torture Law in 2009. Not a single person in authority has been convicted.
That report pointed out that, to begin with, cases involving the police are underreported and almost undocumented. But in 2010, another report, from The Asia Foundation, stated another kind of police involvement in condemnable acts that cast doubt on their supposed job description of protecting the citizens – extrajudicial killings.
Like the AI report, their data were likewise gathered from 2001, until 2010. They recorded 390 victims of extrajudicial killings. Of the 837 suspects, 9% were attributed to the Police – third only to the military, another state actor, and the New People's Army.
But in fact the hand of the police is tainted even in deaths attributed to the armed forces. Highlighting a similarity with another country whose main killers were police death squads, Kenya, the report noted that victims killed in the Philippines were identified beforehand and killed in remote areas after being detained first by the police. Majority of the victims in the Philippines were identified as legal political activists – activists who first get handcuffed by the police and get brought to their stations.
What is the Police, and who does it serve? In the Philippines, it traces its roots in the Spanish civil guards whose cruelty toward Filipinos the national hero Jose Rizal depicted in his books. But the current police force as we know it descends from the Philippine Constabulary, an institution which co-emerged with American rule in the country. Thus, in the Philippines, policing has in fact functioned as a tool of foreign oppression against the natives.
When the colonizers left, its control was handed over to the local ruling elites. It was the same PC that the dictator Ferdinand Marcos would inherit and would use efficiently. After Marcos was thrown out, police control was handed over to the Department of Interior and Local Government, occasionally figuring in scandals ("Euro Generals" corruption case; the Maguindanao Massacre) and from time to time showing its ineptness, as in the botched rescue mission of Hong Kong bus hostages in Manila in 2010.
The police has been a feared figure in the everyday lives of Filipinos -- a steady presence that exists to protect the ruling elite's banks and malls, and who disperse political rallies against the Philippine's social ills.
The Police has been understood as “an instrument for regulating the lower orders.” As such, it is an institution of force. But according to Richard Seymour, properly understanding the role of the police has to take into account what exactly it defends: “What they're doing is exerting violence and coercion not only in defense of the legal and juridical forms of capitalist social relations, but in the defense of a moral and symbolic order, which expresses their own relationships to the dominant ideology, to the institutions they work in, the (professional middle) class they belong to, and to the social world they police.”
A violent social order where the poorest families – millions of them – subsist on P5,750 every month and the richest families earn ten times as much, breeds instability -- and more violence. And the police is a violent state element precisely because it was designed to be so.
But if the police, on an average day, already exhibit these tendencies. What it could do under the guise of the drug war, and in the hands of Duterte, points only to a more anti-people trajectory.
Already, the numbers are troubling. According to the Citizen's Council for Human Rights, from January 1 to May 9 this year, prior to Duterte's election, number of reported deaths from drug-related violence was 39. After May 10, in just two months, this number has risen to 251.
And who are the victims? Those we know of paint a grim picture. Stories like those of Jefferson Bunuan, a scholar of a local NGO who was brutally killed in a "buy-bust" operation. A criminology student, he dreamed of being a policeman. Stories in the Philippine social media of people arrested just because they "looked like" the bad guy.
Already, the groundwork for a regime where especially the shabby-clothed, the tattooed, the un-schooled, the different, the people with the least capability to defend themselves -- are easily carted off to numberless rooms by gun- and baton-wielding men in uniform. They have a name for this. This is called “law enforcement.” Meanwhile, the public cheers and eggs the president on, reveling in the new-found “peace and order,” which is in fact nothing more than the slow surrender of all our freedoms as a civilized people. The country is dancing into lawlessness, and the Police and other armed men are keeping the beat.
Because early on, Rodrigo Duterte himself has shown how little his regard is for the concept of “human rights.” When the police he leads swoops down on another poverty-stricken community to smoke out the drug den, the right of supposed suspects to not get whacked, to not get arrested without charges, to be presumed innocent at first – to just be respected as human beings – will not be nearest their minds.
If President Rodrigo Duterte is really serious in helping build a fairer Philippine society, he should stop emboldening and empowering the very same forces that threaten the masses.
Meanwhile, we have to study another form of society – one that does not use force and brutality just so it could impose order amidst the inequalities of Capitalism.
Sunday, July 17, 2016
REPOST: Administrasyong naghahanap ng oposisyon ni Walden Bello*
(Ang orihinal na akda ay nandito.)
Nagbunga ng pag-asa at matayog na hangarin para sa administrasyon ni Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte ang mga pangyayari nitong nakaraang mga linggo. Ngunit kasabay nito, nagbunga rin ito ng maraming pangamba ukol sa direksyon na tinatahak nito.
Pag-asa
Ang hayagang pagtukoy at pamamahiya sa limang heneral ng pulisya na di-umano’y protektor o may kinalaman sa ilegal na droga ay isa lamang sa sunod-sunod na pagkilos ng bagong Pangulo na pumukaw ng popular na pagsang-ayon.
Pinukaw ng mabibilis na pangyayari ang pag-asa para sa bagong uri ng pamamahala. Kabilang na dito ang pangako ng administrasyon na wawakasan nito ang kontraktwalisasyon at ang pahayag na maglalabas ito ng executive order upang ipatupad ang Freedom of Information. Sa pagtatalaga ng ilang personalidad na naiugnay sa National Democratic Front sa pinakamatataas na puwesto sa Department of Agrarian Reform, Department of Social Welfare and Development, at National Anti-Poverty Commission, tila paparating na nga ang panibagong kasunduan para sa mga maralitang sektor.
Marahil ang paghirang kay Gina Lopez--kilala para sa kaniyang posisyon laban sa industriya ng pagminina--bilang pinuno ng Department of the Environment and Natural Resources ang pinakapinalakpakan ng mga non-government organizations (NGOs) at civil society. Nagdiwang rin sila nang tinira mismo ni Duterte ang kritiko ni Lopez, ang maka-minang negosyanteng si Manny Pangilinan, bilang “papet at tau-tauhan ng banyagang Salim Group, samantalang ako ang nahalal na Pangulo ng Republika ng Pilipinas!”
Tunay nga na tila hindi lamang tayo pumapasok sa isang bagong administrasyon, kundi sa isang bagong kapanahunan.
Takot
Ngunit kahalo ng pag-asa ang takot at kaba. Sa sunod-sunod na pagpaslang sa mga pinaghihinalaang drug pusher, may mga nagsusupetsa na pinatatahimik ng mga tiwaling pulis ang kanilang mga kasabwat; o na inaaksyunan nila ang senyales ni Digong na tila nagbibigay permiso sa kanilang pumatay ng mga nagtutulak at gumagamit ng ilegal na droga nang walang pakundangan para sa tamang proseso ng batas.
May implikasyon ang salita, sabi nga ng mga kampeon ng karapatang pantao. Nangangamba sila na ang mga sinabi ni Duterte noong panahon ng kampanya--na tama lang na patayin ng mamamayan ang mga drug pusher kapag nanlaban ang mga ito, o na magbibigay siya ng mas mataas na pabuya para sa patay kaysa sa buhay na kriminal--ay nakapag-umpisa ng isang alon ng vigilanteismo na makakikitil din ng mga inosenteng buhay. Ayon sa kanila, madaling lumubha ang vigilanteismo sa isang sitwasyon kung saan mapaparusahan ng ilan ang kanilang kaaway sa pagpaparatang sa mga ito bilang drug pusher.
Malagim ang mga bilang: ayon sa Philippine Association of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA), 163 na ang napaslang mula noong eleksyon ng Mayo 9, karamihan ng mga ito mula sa mararahas na engkuwentro sa pulisya.
Sa harap ng kakaibang ugnayan na isinusulong ng bagong pamahalaang ito--mga kilos na tila nagtataguyod sa karapatang pang-ekonomiko at panlipunan ng maralita sa isang banda, at adbokasiya para sa agarang pagpaslang ng mga pinaghihinalaang kriminal sa kabila—may dalawang interesanteng tugon na lumalabas. Ang isa ay nagsasaad na hindi natin dapat masyadong pansinin ang mga extrajudicial killings o ang paglabag sa tamang proseso ng batas, dahil tapat naman ang pagsulong niya sa mga patakarang makaaabante sa kagalingang panlipunan at katayuang pang-ekonomiko ng masang maralita. Ang pangalawang tugon naman ay nagsasabing hindi indibidwal na karapatan ang dapat bigyang halaga kundi ang karapatan ng maralitang uri, at na hindi na tayo dapat mag-abala tungkol sa karapatan ng mga uring mapagsamantala o ng mga uring kriminal at lumpen.
Nakaliligalig ang mga pananaw na ito. Una, nananatili pa ring pangako ang mga repormang panilipunan at pang-ekonomiya, at maaari pa ring malusaw o mabara ang mga ito ng pakikipagkompromiso sa mga kumokontrang malalaking interes. Pero hindi ito ang pangunahing dahilan kung bakit hindi lamang mali kundi mapanganib ang mga pananaw na ito.
Tutukan muna natin ang pangalawang tugon. Kailangan lamang nating alalahanin ang binansagang “Ahos Campaign” na nakawasak sa hanay ng Kaliwa noong dekada 80 upang makilala ang teribleng kapinsalaan na naidudulot ng ganitong paniniwala. Mahigit 2,000 katao ang napatay nang walang pakundangan sa kanilang karapatan o sa tamang proseso, dahil lamang nabansagan sila na mga ahente ng naghaharing uri. Bagamat kakaunti na lamang sa mga progresibo ang naniniwala dito, hindi pa rin dapat tawaran ang patuloy na impluwensiya nito sa ilang sektor sa Kaliwa.
Tumungo naman tayo sa unang tugon. Popular na popular ang paniniwala na dapat nating bigyan ng puwang ang Pangulo sa kanyang pamamaraan sa pagtuligsa sa krimen dahila matindi naman ang suporta niya para sa katarungang panlipunan at mga reporma sa ekonomiya. Masasabi nga na ang malaking bulto ng bumoto para kay Duterte ay bumoto para sa kanya dahil sang-ayon sila sa kanyang mga masidhing pamamaraan ng pagtugon sa krimen, kasabay ng kanyang pangakong wakasan ang korupsyon at ang kanyang matinding pagkondena sa kahirapan at kawalan ng pantay na oportunidad para sa lahat.
Dahil sa mahinang record ng mga nagdaang administrasyon sa pagsugpo sa krimen at pantay na pagpapataw ng batas, madaling maunawaan kung bakit punong-puno na ang sambayanan at sumusuporta sila sa mararahas na pamamaraan laban sa droga at kriminalidad. Pero hindi porke’t popular ang marahas na pamamaraan ni Duterte ay nagiging tama ito. Oo, maaari tayong sumang-ayon sa mga tagasuporta ni Duterte na mahina ang pamamalakad ng batas, at na maraming kriminal ang nakaiiwas sa karampatang parusa. Ngunit ibang bagay na ang sabihing agarang pagpatay sa pinaghihinalaan ang tanging paraan para makakuha ng katarungan, o na hindi na kailangan pang sundan ang tamang proseso sa ilalim ng batas.
Saligang karapatan at karapatang positibo
Nang una siyang nagpahiwatig na tatakbo siya para sa pagka-Pangulo noong nakaraang taon, sinabi ko na makabubuti para sa demokrasya ang kandidatura ni Duterte dahil mapipilitan ang mga puwersang liberal at progresibo na depensahan ang isang proposisyon na matagal na nilang nakaligtaan: na ang karapatang pantao at ang tamang proseso ng batas ay nasa kaibuturan ng mga prinsipyong pinahahalagahan ng lipunang Pilipino.
Ngayon na ang panahon para tuparin ang tungkuling ito.
Madalas na tinatawag na saligang karapatan o fundamental rights ang karapatang mabuhay, karapatang maging malaya, karapatan laban sa diskriminasyon, at karapatan sa tamang proseso ng batas. Ito’y dahil isisinusulong ng mga karapatang ito ang di-matatawarang halaga ng buhay at katauhan ng bawat isa sa atin, halagang nasasa-atin sa simula’t simula, at hindi iginagawad ng Estado o ng lipunan. Madalas din silang tawaging karapatang hindi maipagkakait, o karapatang negatibo, upang ipagdiinan na walang sinumang indibidwal, korporasyon o gobyerno ang maaaring magpasawalang-bisa o bumangga sa mga karapatang ito.
May mga karapatan na ngayo’y tinatawag na karapatang positibo, tulad ng karapatang maging malaya sa kahirapan, karapatan sa pantay na oportunidad pang-ekonomiya, at karapatan sa buhay na may dignidad. Tinaguriang karapatang positibo ang mga karapatang ito na nagsusulong ng mga kondisyon na nagbubukas ng oportunidad upang mabuhay at umunlad ang isang indibidwal o lipunan sa abot ng kanilang potensyal. Ang karapatang positibo—na minsa’y kinikilala din bilang karapatang pang-ekonomiya, palipunan, at kultural—ay nagpapalawig sa ating mga saligang karapatan. Maaaring naunang nakilala at naisabatas ang mga saligang karapatan, ngunit ang mga karapatang positibo ay nararapat na extensyon ng mga saligang karapatan. Sa madaling sabi, ang mga karapatang ito ay isang kabuuan na hindi dapat ihiwalay sa isa’t-isa. Magiging marupok ang katayuan ng karapatang positibo sa isang Estado kung saan ang saligang karapatan ng buhay ay kinokontra ng pinunong diumano’y nagsusulong sa mga ito.
Demokrasyang liberal vs. kamay na bakal
Isa sa pangunahing obligasyon ng gobyerno ang pagseguro sa buhay at kagalingan ng mga mamamayan nito, ngunit maaari lamang ito matupad habang nirerespeto ang kabuuang saklaw ng karapatan ng mga mamamayan. May tensyon o tunggalian sa pagitan ng pagrespeto sa indibidwal na karapatan at pagtitiyak ng seguridad at kaayusan ng lipunan. Ang tensyong ito ang siyang nagpapakita ng kaibhan ng estadong liberal-demokratiko mula sa mga pasista, diktadurya, Stalinista o mala-ISIS na estado.
Para sa mga progresibo at liberal, isang batayang prinsipyo sa ebolusyon ng pamamahalang Pilipino ang pagkilala at pagrespeto sa mga karapatang pantao, karpatang sibil, karapatang pulitikal, panlipunan, pang-ekonomiya at kultural. Naimpluwensiyahan ang ebolusyong ito ng mga mahahalagang kaganapan sa kasaysayan ng demokrasya, tulad ng Rebolusyong Pranses at ang mga sumunod pang pandaigdigang pakikibaka laban sa kolonyalismo, pasismo at Stalinismo. Naipanalo ang mga karapatang indibidwal sa mga magkakaugnay na pandaigdigang pakikibaka laban sa mga naghaharing uri, mga imperyalistang mapaniil, dambuhalang korporasyon, at elitistang burukrasya at militar. Nagbunga ang mga pakikibakang ito ng mga kaayusang demokrasyang liberal at demokrasyang panlipunan—ang huli’y kilala sa kanilang diin sa pagtatamo ng mga karapatang poitibo, kabilang na ang unibersal na proteksyong panlipunan.
Ganunpaman, kailangang kilalanin na may kumokontra sa tulak na ito, isang pangontra na maya’t-maya ay umuusbong upang hamunin ang halaga ng karapatang pantao at karapatan ng indibidwal. Sa perspektibong ito, iniluluklok ang Estado bilang natatanging awtoridad at tagapaghatol ng kung aling mga karapatan ang maaaring matamasa ng bawat indibidwal. Itinuturing nitong mas mababa ang karapatan o kagalingan ng indibidwal sa seguridad at pangangailangan ng Estado, at ipinapalagay nito na ang tamang proseso ng batas ay nababatay lamang sa pangangailangan ng gobyerno, at hindi sa karapatan o kagalingan ng indibidwal. Ang makasaysayang perspektibong ito ang naghari sa Pilipinas noong panahon ng batas militar mula 1972 hanggang 1986, at nagbabanta itong mamayani muli ngayon, nang may suporta mula sa isang malaking bahagi ng mamamayan.
Mga panganib ng Dutertismo
Sa kasalukuyan, kinakatawan ni Pangulong Duterte ang pananaw na di-kumkilala sa unibersalidad ng karapatang pantao at tahasang ipinagkakait ang tamang proseso ng batas sa ilang uri ng mamamayan, diumano para masugpo ang kriminalidad at katiwalian. Sang-ayon ang karamihan ng mga bumoto sa kanya sa pananaw niyang ito. Sila ang nagsisilbing base ng Dutertismo, isang kilusang nakabatay sa masa ng suporta sa isang lider na kampeon ng mga kontra-liberal na pamamaraan. Sa tingin nila’y kinakailangan ang kamay na bakal upang puksain ang krimen, korupsyon at iba pang problemang panlipunan.
Ididiin ko ngayon ang tatlong puntos ukol sa tulak na ito para sa Dutertismo:
Una, hindi natin kinokontra ang layuning labanan ang krimen. Sa katunayan, sinsuportahan natin ito. Ngunit hindi ito maaaring matamo sa pamamagitan ng pagyurak sa karapatang pantao. Walang sinumang may karapatang kumitil ng buhay, maliban na lang sa pambihirang kalagayan o sa malinaw na kaso ng pagdepensa sa sariling buhay. Nararapat na matamasa ng lahat ng tao ang mga karapatang ito, at ng proteksyon mula sa Estado. Sa panahong kailangang limitahan ang mga karapatang ito para sa ikabubuti ng nakararami, kailangan ding dumaan sa isang ligal at matibay na proseso sa ilalim ng batas upang maisagawa ito. Tama nga na dapat maparusahan ang lumabag sa batas; ngunit kahit ang mga lumabag sa batas ay may karapatan, at nararapat lamang sumailalim sa tamang proseso ng batas.
Pangalawa, sa pagtanggi sa karapatan ng ilang uri ng tao—tulad ng ginagawa ni Duterte—nalalagay tayong lahat sa panganib ng walang katiyakan. Maaari ring matanggi ang karapatang ito sa iba pang mga grupo, tulad ng mga katunggaling pulitikal, o mga puwersang mababansagang nanggugulo lamang, tulad ng mga kumikilos laban sa ilang patakaran ng gobyerno, o di kaya’y mga manggagawa na nagsa-strike para sa mas maayos na pasahod. Tandaan na noong kandidato pa lang siya, nagbanta si Duterte na papatayin niya ang mga manggagawa na kokontra sa kanyang plano para sa ekonomiya, at pinaratangan ang lahat ng mga mamamahayag na napatay bilang mga tiwali na tumamo lamang ng nararapat sa kanila. Hindi yun simpleng sabi-sabi lang.
Pangatlo, isang kabuuang hindi maipaghihiwalay ang ating mga karapatan. Ang anumang patakarang diumano’y nagsusulong ng karapatang positibo at seseguro sa kagalingang pang-ekonomiya o panlipunan ng mga mamamayan ay madaling mababawi o mababasag kung hindi kinikilala na nagmumula at nakabatay ang mga ito sa pundamental nating karapatan sa buhay. Isang malaking kontradiksyon ang pagsulong sa karapatang positibo habang kumukontra sa saligang karapatan. Ang sabihing palalayain kita mula sa eksploytasyon ngunit magpapatuloy lamang ang buhay mo batay sa mabuti mong asal ay isang kabalintunaan na hindi maaaring maipagtanggol magpakailanman. Ito ang kontradiksyong nagtulak sa pagwawakas ng mga Stalinistang estadong sosyalista ng Timog Europa.
Kritikal na oposisyon
Tinulak ang kampanya at programa ni Duterte ng kanyang pagmamaliit sa karapatang pantao at paghamak sa halaga ng tamang proseso ng batas. May malaking pagkakabiyak sa ating bansa sa pagitan ng mga kumakampeon para sa karapatang pantao at sa mga tumatanggi sa halaga nito. Dahil dito, puwersado tayong naniniwala sa pundamental na halaga ng karapatang pantao na maging kritikal na oposisyon sa administrasyong ito.
Ang pagiging oposisyon ay hindi nangangahulugan ng pagtanggi na lehitimo ang administrasyong ito. Nangangahulugan ito ng pagkilala sa resultang idinulot ng halalalan, habang nagpapahiwatig ng di-pagsang-ayon sa platapormang nagpanalo dito—ang pagpigil sa krimen at korupsyon sa pamamagitan ng agarang pagpaslang at paglabag sa tamang proseso ng batas.
Totoong mahirap na komontra sa isang popular na administrasyon. Kaya nga’t dapat nating purihin ang mga tunay na kampeon ng karapatang pantao tulad nina Rep. Teddy Baguilat at Edcel Lagman, na nanindigan para sa mga prinsipyong ito at nagdeklara ng sarili nila bilang kabahagi ng minorya sa Kongreso. Ito’y kahit na ang karamihan ng kanilang mga kasama sa Liberal Party ay bumalimbing na at sumakay sa Duterte bandwagon upang makibahagi sa pabuya ng kandidatong dati’y katunggali nila. Higit sa kanilang dating kapartido, alam nina Baguilat at Lagman na panandalian lamang ang popularidad, at hindi karapat-dapat na banggain ang pinaninidigan mong prinsipyo para lamang makisakay dito.
Sa harap ng pagkalusaw ng matibay na oposisyon sa Kongreso at Senado, ng di-mawaring posisyon ng Korte Suprema, at ng katahimikan mula sa burukrasya (maliban na lang sa Commission on Human Rights), kailangang manggaling ang gulugod ng oposisyon sa hanay ng civil society.
Hindi nangangahulugan ang oposisyon ng pagsalungat sa lahat-lahat. Nangangahulugan ito ng kritikal na oposisyon, kung saan maaaring magpahayag ng suporta para sa mga positibong patakaran na iminumungkahi ng administrasyon, habang pinapanatili ang estratehikong pagkontra sa paglabag nito sa mga pundamental na prinsipyo. Sa madaling sabi, dapat lamang na suportahan nang buong-buo ang mga patakaran tulad ng repormang agraryo, pagwawakas sa kontraktwalisasyon, pagpapatibay ng Freedom of Information, at pagpipigil sa mapaminsalang industriya ng pagmimina—dahil ang mga ito ay mga progresibong prayoridad na makatutulong sa ikabubuti ng sambayanan at ng kalikasan. Ngunit ang mga saligang karapatan ay pundamental na karapatan, at habang ipinapanganib ang mga ito ng pilosopiya at pulitika ng kasalukuyang administrasyon, marapat lamang na manindigan tayo sa ating oposisyon dito, kahit pa sinusuportahan natin ang mga programang nagsusulong sa mga karapatang positibo ng mga maralita.
Gaano man kahalaga ang pagdepensa sa mga pangunahing prinsipyong ito, hindi ito ang natatanging dahilan para mapabilang sa oposisyon. Ang isang masigasig na oposisyon ang isa sa pinakamahusay na depensa ng demokrasya, dahil wala na marahil pang mas makawawasak sa demokrasya kaysa sa pagtipon ng poder sa ilalim ng iilan o ng iisang lider. Sa ganang ito, naniniwala ako sa Pangulo nang sinabi niya na wala siyang intensyong manatili sa poder nang lagpas sa anim na taon. Ngunit kung may natutunan tayo sa pulitika, ito na siguro iyon: ang pinakabusilak na intensyon ay madaling masuhulan ng sukdulang kapangyarihan. Kabalintunaan mang isipin, ang pinakamahusay na paraan para tulungan si Pangulong Duterte na tuparin ang kanyang pangako ay ang pagbibigay sa kanya ng matalino at masigasig na oposisyon.
Sa huling suma, ang isang matibay na oposisyon na nakabatay sa pagdepensa sa karapatang pantao ang pinakamainam na paraan para maseguro ang pagpapatuloy ng isang demokratikong Pilipinas.
*Isinalin sa Pilipino ni Cecile Ochoa
Nagbunga ng pag-asa at matayog na hangarin para sa administrasyon ni Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte ang mga pangyayari nitong nakaraang mga linggo. Ngunit kasabay nito, nagbunga rin ito ng maraming pangamba ukol sa direksyon na tinatahak nito.
Pag-asa
Ang hayagang pagtukoy at pamamahiya sa limang heneral ng pulisya na di-umano’y protektor o may kinalaman sa ilegal na droga ay isa lamang sa sunod-sunod na pagkilos ng bagong Pangulo na pumukaw ng popular na pagsang-ayon.
Pinukaw ng mabibilis na pangyayari ang pag-asa para sa bagong uri ng pamamahala. Kabilang na dito ang pangako ng administrasyon na wawakasan nito ang kontraktwalisasyon at ang pahayag na maglalabas ito ng executive order upang ipatupad ang Freedom of Information. Sa pagtatalaga ng ilang personalidad na naiugnay sa National Democratic Front sa pinakamatataas na puwesto sa Department of Agrarian Reform, Department of Social Welfare and Development, at National Anti-Poverty Commission, tila paparating na nga ang panibagong kasunduan para sa mga maralitang sektor.
Marahil ang paghirang kay Gina Lopez--kilala para sa kaniyang posisyon laban sa industriya ng pagminina--bilang pinuno ng Department of the Environment and Natural Resources ang pinakapinalakpakan ng mga non-government organizations (NGOs) at civil society. Nagdiwang rin sila nang tinira mismo ni Duterte ang kritiko ni Lopez, ang maka-minang negosyanteng si Manny Pangilinan, bilang “papet at tau-tauhan ng banyagang Salim Group, samantalang ako ang nahalal na Pangulo ng Republika ng Pilipinas!”
Tunay nga na tila hindi lamang tayo pumapasok sa isang bagong administrasyon, kundi sa isang bagong kapanahunan.
Takot
Ngunit kahalo ng pag-asa ang takot at kaba. Sa sunod-sunod na pagpaslang sa mga pinaghihinalaang drug pusher, may mga nagsusupetsa na pinatatahimik ng mga tiwaling pulis ang kanilang mga kasabwat; o na inaaksyunan nila ang senyales ni Digong na tila nagbibigay permiso sa kanilang pumatay ng mga nagtutulak at gumagamit ng ilegal na droga nang walang pakundangan para sa tamang proseso ng batas.
May implikasyon ang salita, sabi nga ng mga kampeon ng karapatang pantao. Nangangamba sila na ang mga sinabi ni Duterte noong panahon ng kampanya--na tama lang na patayin ng mamamayan ang mga drug pusher kapag nanlaban ang mga ito, o na magbibigay siya ng mas mataas na pabuya para sa patay kaysa sa buhay na kriminal--ay nakapag-umpisa ng isang alon ng vigilanteismo na makakikitil din ng mga inosenteng buhay. Ayon sa kanila, madaling lumubha ang vigilanteismo sa isang sitwasyon kung saan mapaparusahan ng ilan ang kanilang kaaway sa pagpaparatang sa mga ito bilang drug pusher.
Malagim ang mga bilang: ayon sa Philippine Association of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA), 163 na ang napaslang mula noong eleksyon ng Mayo 9, karamihan ng mga ito mula sa mararahas na engkuwentro sa pulisya.
Sa harap ng kakaibang ugnayan na isinusulong ng bagong pamahalaang ito--mga kilos na tila nagtataguyod sa karapatang pang-ekonomiko at panlipunan ng maralita sa isang banda, at adbokasiya para sa agarang pagpaslang ng mga pinaghihinalaang kriminal sa kabila—may dalawang interesanteng tugon na lumalabas. Ang isa ay nagsasaad na hindi natin dapat masyadong pansinin ang mga extrajudicial killings o ang paglabag sa tamang proseso ng batas, dahil tapat naman ang pagsulong niya sa mga patakarang makaaabante sa kagalingang panlipunan at katayuang pang-ekonomiko ng masang maralita. Ang pangalawang tugon naman ay nagsasabing hindi indibidwal na karapatan ang dapat bigyang halaga kundi ang karapatan ng maralitang uri, at na hindi na tayo dapat mag-abala tungkol sa karapatan ng mga uring mapagsamantala o ng mga uring kriminal at lumpen.
Nakaliligalig ang mga pananaw na ito. Una, nananatili pa ring pangako ang mga repormang panilipunan at pang-ekonomiya, at maaari pa ring malusaw o mabara ang mga ito ng pakikipagkompromiso sa mga kumokontrang malalaking interes. Pero hindi ito ang pangunahing dahilan kung bakit hindi lamang mali kundi mapanganib ang mga pananaw na ito.
Tutukan muna natin ang pangalawang tugon. Kailangan lamang nating alalahanin ang binansagang “Ahos Campaign” na nakawasak sa hanay ng Kaliwa noong dekada 80 upang makilala ang teribleng kapinsalaan na naidudulot ng ganitong paniniwala. Mahigit 2,000 katao ang napatay nang walang pakundangan sa kanilang karapatan o sa tamang proseso, dahil lamang nabansagan sila na mga ahente ng naghaharing uri. Bagamat kakaunti na lamang sa mga progresibo ang naniniwala dito, hindi pa rin dapat tawaran ang patuloy na impluwensiya nito sa ilang sektor sa Kaliwa.
Tumungo naman tayo sa unang tugon. Popular na popular ang paniniwala na dapat nating bigyan ng puwang ang Pangulo sa kanyang pamamaraan sa pagtuligsa sa krimen dahila matindi naman ang suporta niya para sa katarungang panlipunan at mga reporma sa ekonomiya. Masasabi nga na ang malaking bulto ng bumoto para kay Duterte ay bumoto para sa kanya dahil sang-ayon sila sa kanyang mga masidhing pamamaraan ng pagtugon sa krimen, kasabay ng kanyang pangakong wakasan ang korupsyon at ang kanyang matinding pagkondena sa kahirapan at kawalan ng pantay na oportunidad para sa lahat.
Dahil sa mahinang record ng mga nagdaang administrasyon sa pagsugpo sa krimen at pantay na pagpapataw ng batas, madaling maunawaan kung bakit punong-puno na ang sambayanan at sumusuporta sila sa mararahas na pamamaraan laban sa droga at kriminalidad. Pero hindi porke’t popular ang marahas na pamamaraan ni Duterte ay nagiging tama ito. Oo, maaari tayong sumang-ayon sa mga tagasuporta ni Duterte na mahina ang pamamalakad ng batas, at na maraming kriminal ang nakaiiwas sa karampatang parusa. Ngunit ibang bagay na ang sabihing agarang pagpatay sa pinaghihinalaan ang tanging paraan para makakuha ng katarungan, o na hindi na kailangan pang sundan ang tamang proseso sa ilalim ng batas.
Saligang karapatan at karapatang positibo
Nang una siyang nagpahiwatig na tatakbo siya para sa pagka-Pangulo noong nakaraang taon, sinabi ko na makabubuti para sa demokrasya ang kandidatura ni Duterte dahil mapipilitan ang mga puwersang liberal at progresibo na depensahan ang isang proposisyon na matagal na nilang nakaligtaan: na ang karapatang pantao at ang tamang proseso ng batas ay nasa kaibuturan ng mga prinsipyong pinahahalagahan ng lipunang Pilipino.
Ngayon na ang panahon para tuparin ang tungkuling ito.
Madalas na tinatawag na saligang karapatan o fundamental rights ang karapatang mabuhay, karapatang maging malaya, karapatan laban sa diskriminasyon, at karapatan sa tamang proseso ng batas. Ito’y dahil isisinusulong ng mga karapatang ito ang di-matatawarang halaga ng buhay at katauhan ng bawat isa sa atin, halagang nasasa-atin sa simula’t simula, at hindi iginagawad ng Estado o ng lipunan. Madalas din silang tawaging karapatang hindi maipagkakait, o karapatang negatibo, upang ipagdiinan na walang sinumang indibidwal, korporasyon o gobyerno ang maaaring magpasawalang-bisa o bumangga sa mga karapatang ito.
May mga karapatan na ngayo’y tinatawag na karapatang positibo, tulad ng karapatang maging malaya sa kahirapan, karapatan sa pantay na oportunidad pang-ekonomiya, at karapatan sa buhay na may dignidad. Tinaguriang karapatang positibo ang mga karapatang ito na nagsusulong ng mga kondisyon na nagbubukas ng oportunidad upang mabuhay at umunlad ang isang indibidwal o lipunan sa abot ng kanilang potensyal. Ang karapatang positibo—na minsa’y kinikilala din bilang karapatang pang-ekonomiya, palipunan, at kultural—ay nagpapalawig sa ating mga saligang karapatan. Maaaring naunang nakilala at naisabatas ang mga saligang karapatan, ngunit ang mga karapatang positibo ay nararapat na extensyon ng mga saligang karapatan. Sa madaling sabi, ang mga karapatang ito ay isang kabuuan na hindi dapat ihiwalay sa isa’t-isa. Magiging marupok ang katayuan ng karapatang positibo sa isang Estado kung saan ang saligang karapatan ng buhay ay kinokontra ng pinunong diumano’y nagsusulong sa mga ito.
Demokrasyang liberal vs. kamay na bakal
Isa sa pangunahing obligasyon ng gobyerno ang pagseguro sa buhay at kagalingan ng mga mamamayan nito, ngunit maaari lamang ito matupad habang nirerespeto ang kabuuang saklaw ng karapatan ng mga mamamayan. May tensyon o tunggalian sa pagitan ng pagrespeto sa indibidwal na karapatan at pagtitiyak ng seguridad at kaayusan ng lipunan. Ang tensyong ito ang siyang nagpapakita ng kaibhan ng estadong liberal-demokratiko mula sa mga pasista, diktadurya, Stalinista o mala-ISIS na estado.
Para sa mga progresibo at liberal, isang batayang prinsipyo sa ebolusyon ng pamamahalang Pilipino ang pagkilala at pagrespeto sa mga karapatang pantao, karpatang sibil, karapatang pulitikal, panlipunan, pang-ekonomiya at kultural. Naimpluwensiyahan ang ebolusyong ito ng mga mahahalagang kaganapan sa kasaysayan ng demokrasya, tulad ng Rebolusyong Pranses at ang mga sumunod pang pandaigdigang pakikibaka laban sa kolonyalismo, pasismo at Stalinismo. Naipanalo ang mga karapatang indibidwal sa mga magkakaugnay na pandaigdigang pakikibaka laban sa mga naghaharing uri, mga imperyalistang mapaniil, dambuhalang korporasyon, at elitistang burukrasya at militar. Nagbunga ang mga pakikibakang ito ng mga kaayusang demokrasyang liberal at demokrasyang panlipunan—ang huli’y kilala sa kanilang diin sa pagtatamo ng mga karapatang poitibo, kabilang na ang unibersal na proteksyong panlipunan.
Ganunpaman, kailangang kilalanin na may kumokontra sa tulak na ito, isang pangontra na maya’t-maya ay umuusbong upang hamunin ang halaga ng karapatang pantao at karapatan ng indibidwal. Sa perspektibong ito, iniluluklok ang Estado bilang natatanging awtoridad at tagapaghatol ng kung aling mga karapatan ang maaaring matamasa ng bawat indibidwal. Itinuturing nitong mas mababa ang karapatan o kagalingan ng indibidwal sa seguridad at pangangailangan ng Estado, at ipinapalagay nito na ang tamang proseso ng batas ay nababatay lamang sa pangangailangan ng gobyerno, at hindi sa karapatan o kagalingan ng indibidwal. Ang makasaysayang perspektibong ito ang naghari sa Pilipinas noong panahon ng batas militar mula 1972 hanggang 1986, at nagbabanta itong mamayani muli ngayon, nang may suporta mula sa isang malaking bahagi ng mamamayan.
Mga panganib ng Dutertismo
Sa kasalukuyan, kinakatawan ni Pangulong Duterte ang pananaw na di-kumkilala sa unibersalidad ng karapatang pantao at tahasang ipinagkakait ang tamang proseso ng batas sa ilang uri ng mamamayan, diumano para masugpo ang kriminalidad at katiwalian. Sang-ayon ang karamihan ng mga bumoto sa kanya sa pananaw niyang ito. Sila ang nagsisilbing base ng Dutertismo, isang kilusang nakabatay sa masa ng suporta sa isang lider na kampeon ng mga kontra-liberal na pamamaraan. Sa tingin nila’y kinakailangan ang kamay na bakal upang puksain ang krimen, korupsyon at iba pang problemang panlipunan.
Ididiin ko ngayon ang tatlong puntos ukol sa tulak na ito para sa Dutertismo:
Una, hindi natin kinokontra ang layuning labanan ang krimen. Sa katunayan, sinsuportahan natin ito. Ngunit hindi ito maaaring matamo sa pamamagitan ng pagyurak sa karapatang pantao. Walang sinumang may karapatang kumitil ng buhay, maliban na lang sa pambihirang kalagayan o sa malinaw na kaso ng pagdepensa sa sariling buhay. Nararapat na matamasa ng lahat ng tao ang mga karapatang ito, at ng proteksyon mula sa Estado. Sa panahong kailangang limitahan ang mga karapatang ito para sa ikabubuti ng nakararami, kailangan ding dumaan sa isang ligal at matibay na proseso sa ilalim ng batas upang maisagawa ito. Tama nga na dapat maparusahan ang lumabag sa batas; ngunit kahit ang mga lumabag sa batas ay may karapatan, at nararapat lamang sumailalim sa tamang proseso ng batas.
Pangalawa, sa pagtanggi sa karapatan ng ilang uri ng tao—tulad ng ginagawa ni Duterte—nalalagay tayong lahat sa panganib ng walang katiyakan. Maaari ring matanggi ang karapatang ito sa iba pang mga grupo, tulad ng mga katunggaling pulitikal, o mga puwersang mababansagang nanggugulo lamang, tulad ng mga kumikilos laban sa ilang patakaran ng gobyerno, o di kaya’y mga manggagawa na nagsa-strike para sa mas maayos na pasahod. Tandaan na noong kandidato pa lang siya, nagbanta si Duterte na papatayin niya ang mga manggagawa na kokontra sa kanyang plano para sa ekonomiya, at pinaratangan ang lahat ng mga mamamahayag na napatay bilang mga tiwali na tumamo lamang ng nararapat sa kanila. Hindi yun simpleng sabi-sabi lang.
Pangatlo, isang kabuuang hindi maipaghihiwalay ang ating mga karapatan. Ang anumang patakarang diumano’y nagsusulong ng karapatang positibo at seseguro sa kagalingang pang-ekonomiya o panlipunan ng mga mamamayan ay madaling mababawi o mababasag kung hindi kinikilala na nagmumula at nakabatay ang mga ito sa pundamental nating karapatan sa buhay. Isang malaking kontradiksyon ang pagsulong sa karapatang positibo habang kumukontra sa saligang karapatan. Ang sabihing palalayain kita mula sa eksploytasyon ngunit magpapatuloy lamang ang buhay mo batay sa mabuti mong asal ay isang kabalintunaan na hindi maaaring maipagtanggol magpakailanman. Ito ang kontradiksyong nagtulak sa pagwawakas ng mga Stalinistang estadong sosyalista ng Timog Europa.
Kritikal na oposisyon
Tinulak ang kampanya at programa ni Duterte ng kanyang pagmamaliit sa karapatang pantao at paghamak sa halaga ng tamang proseso ng batas. May malaking pagkakabiyak sa ating bansa sa pagitan ng mga kumakampeon para sa karapatang pantao at sa mga tumatanggi sa halaga nito. Dahil dito, puwersado tayong naniniwala sa pundamental na halaga ng karapatang pantao na maging kritikal na oposisyon sa administrasyong ito.
Ang pagiging oposisyon ay hindi nangangahulugan ng pagtanggi na lehitimo ang administrasyong ito. Nangangahulugan ito ng pagkilala sa resultang idinulot ng halalalan, habang nagpapahiwatig ng di-pagsang-ayon sa platapormang nagpanalo dito—ang pagpigil sa krimen at korupsyon sa pamamagitan ng agarang pagpaslang at paglabag sa tamang proseso ng batas.
Totoong mahirap na komontra sa isang popular na administrasyon. Kaya nga’t dapat nating purihin ang mga tunay na kampeon ng karapatang pantao tulad nina Rep. Teddy Baguilat at Edcel Lagman, na nanindigan para sa mga prinsipyong ito at nagdeklara ng sarili nila bilang kabahagi ng minorya sa Kongreso. Ito’y kahit na ang karamihan ng kanilang mga kasama sa Liberal Party ay bumalimbing na at sumakay sa Duterte bandwagon upang makibahagi sa pabuya ng kandidatong dati’y katunggali nila. Higit sa kanilang dating kapartido, alam nina Baguilat at Lagman na panandalian lamang ang popularidad, at hindi karapat-dapat na banggain ang pinaninidigan mong prinsipyo para lamang makisakay dito.
Sa harap ng pagkalusaw ng matibay na oposisyon sa Kongreso at Senado, ng di-mawaring posisyon ng Korte Suprema, at ng katahimikan mula sa burukrasya (maliban na lang sa Commission on Human Rights), kailangang manggaling ang gulugod ng oposisyon sa hanay ng civil society.
Hindi nangangahulugan ang oposisyon ng pagsalungat sa lahat-lahat. Nangangahulugan ito ng kritikal na oposisyon, kung saan maaaring magpahayag ng suporta para sa mga positibong patakaran na iminumungkahi ng administrasyon, habang pinapanatili ang estratehikong pagkontra sa paglabag nito sa mga pundamental na prinsipyo. Sa madaling sabi, dapat lamang na suportahan nang buong-buo ang mga patakaran tulad ng repormang agraryo, pagwawakas sa kontraktwalisasyon, pagpapatibay ng Freedom of Information, at pagpipigil sa mapaminsalang industriya ng pagmimina—dahil ang mga ito ay mga progresibong prayoridad na makatutulong sa ikabubuti ng sambayanan at ng kalikasan. Ngunit ang mga saligang karapatan ay pundamental na karapatan, at habang ipinapanganib ang mga ito ng pilosopiya at pulitika ng kasalukuyang administrasyon, marapat lamang na manindigan tayo sa ating oposisyon dito, kahit pa sinusuportahan natin ang mga programang nagsusulong sa mga karapatang positibo ng mga maralita.
Gaano man kahalaga ang pagdepensa sa mga pangunahing prinsipyong ito, hindi ito ang natatanging dahilan para mapabilang sa oposisyon. Ang isang masigasig na oposisyon ang isa sa pinakamahusay na depensa ng demokrasya, dahil wala na marahil pang mas makawawasak sa demokrasya kaysa sa pagtipon ng poder sa ilalim ng iilan o ng iisang lider. Sa ganang ito, naniniwala ako sa Pangulo nang sinabi niya na wala siyang intensyong manatili sa poder nang lagpas sa anim na taon. Ngunit kung may natutunan tayo sa pulitika, ito na siguro iyon: ang pinakabusilak na intensyon ay madaling masuhulan ng sukdulang kapangyarihan. Kabalintunaan mang isipin, ang pinakamahusay na paraan para tulungan si Pangulong Duterte na tuparin ang kanyang pangako ay ang pagbibigay sa kanya ng matalino at masigasig na oposisyon.
Sa huling suma, ang isang matibay na oposisyon na nakabatay sa pagdepensa sa karapatang pantao ang pinakamainam na paraan para maseguro ang pagpapatuloy ng isang demokratikong Pilipinas.
*Isinalin sa Pilipino ni Cecile Ochoa
REPOST: An administration in search of an opposition by Walden Bello
This is essential reading on the current state of progressive politics under Rodrigo Duterte. The original Rappler piece is here.
An administration in search of an opposition
A strong opposition based on the defense of universal human rights is the best way to ensure the future of Philippine democracy
Walden Bello
July 10, 2016
The events of the last few weeks have engendered much goodwill towards the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte at the same that it has triggered apprehensions about where it is headed.
Hopes
The naming and shaming of 5 former and current police generals for their alleged involvement in the drug trade was only the most dramatic in a series of moves by the new president that elicited popular approval.
Hopes for a new social dispensation were stirred by several fast-moving events, among them a promise that the administration would end contractualization and an announcement that an executive order would institutionalize Freedom of Information. That a new deal was at hand for the marginalized sectors appeared imminent with the appointment of people associated with the National Democratic Front (NDF) to the top posts in the Department of Agrarian Reform, Department of Social Welfare and Development, and the National Anti-Poverty Commission.
Perhaps the appointment that drew the most applause from civil society was that of anti-mining advocate Gina Lopez as head of Department of the Environment and Natural Resources. Civil society also cheered when Mr Duterte blasted Lopez’s critic, mining magnate Manny Pangilinan, as “just a puppet of the foreign based Salim Group, while I am the chosen president of the Republic of the Philippines!”
Indeed, we seem to be entering not simply a new presidency but a new era.
Fears
Hopes, however, have mingled with fears. The spate of killings of suspected drug pushers and users triggered suspicions that crooked cops were getting rid of their accomplices or that they were acting on the green light to kill drug pushers and addicts with no or minimal attention to due process that they feel they had gotten from the president.
Words matter, said human rights advocates, worried that Duterte’s statements prior to his ascent to the presidency that citizens had the right to kill drug pushers if they resisted and his offering a higher bounty for dead rather than living criminals might already have inaugurated a wave of vigilantism that might claim innocent lives. This could easily degenerate, they said, into people settling scores with their enemies simply by branding them as pushers.
The numbers are grim: according to the Philippine Association of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA), there have been 163 killings since the May 9 elections, most but not all of them in violent encounters with the police.
The curious conjunction of moves that apparently promote economic and social rights with advocacy of extrajudicial killings has provoked two interesting responses. One is that we should not dwell too much on the president’s endorsement of extrajudicial killings or violations of due process since he is, after all, committed to taking measures that will advance the social and economic welfare of the marginalized masses. The second response is that what matters are not individual rights but “class rights,” and we should not bother too much with the “so-called rights” of people that belong to the exploiting classes and the criminal class or “lumpenproletariat.”
These views are worrisome. For one, the so-called social and economic reforms are still promises, and it may were well happen that they could be blocked or diluted by compromises with vested interests. But this is not the principal reason why these views are wrong and dangerous.
To focus first on the second response, one has only to recall the so-called “Ahos (‘Garlic’) Campaign” that ravaged the ranks of the left during the 1980’s to realize the terrible consequences of such a stance. Some 2000 people were killed with no regard for due process simply because they were arbitrarily branded as class enemies or “agents of the ruling class.” Although this view is now held by a distinct minority of progressives, its continuing influence in some sectors of the left must not be underestimated.
The first response – that we should give the President some leeway in his methods of dealing with crime since he is, after all, supportive of social and economic reform – is very popular. In fact, one can say that a very large number of those who voted for Duterte voted for him because they approved of his extreme measures to curb crime, along with his promise to root out corruption and his strong condemnation of poverty and inequality.
Now, given the poor record of previous administrations on law and order, one can certainly understand why people are fed up with and support drastic measures on crime and drugs. But the popularity of Duterte’s law and order stance does not make it right. One can definitely agree with Duterte supporters that the administration of justice is terrible, with too many crooks evading the law, but it is quite another thing to say that the way to deal with them is via extrajudicial execution and skipping due process altogether.
Fundamental rights and positive rights
When he first signaled his intention to run for the presidency last year, I said that Duterte’s candidacy would be good for democracy because it would force liberals and progressives to defend a proposition that they had long taken for granted: that human rights and due process are core values of Philippine society.
Let us now address this urgent task.
The right to life, right to freedom, right to be free from discrimination, and right to due process have often been called fundamental rights because they assert the intrinsic value of each person’s existence and underline that this value is not bestowed by the state or society. They are also often called “negative” rights or “inalienable” rights to stress that other individuals, corporate bodies, or the state have no right to take them away or violate them.
What have now come to be known as “positive rights” such as the right to be free from poverty, the right to a status of economic equality with others, and the right to a life with dignity are those rights that promote the attainment of conditions that allow the individual or group to develop fully as a human being. Positive rights – sometimes referred to as social, economic, and cultural rights – build on negative or fundamental rights. The recognition and institutionalization of fundamental rights may have been historically prior to the recognition and achievement of positive rights but the latter are necessary extensions of the former. Rights, in short, are indivisible, and positive rights have a fragile foundation in a state where the basic right to life is negated by leaders who claim to be promoting them.
Liberal democracy vs authoritarian rule
One of the key functions of the state is to secure the life and limbs of its citizens, but this must be accomplished while respecting the full range of rights of its citizens. There is a necessary tension between not violating individual rights and achieving security and political order. This healthy tension is what distinguishes the liberal democratic or social democratic state from the authoritarian, fascist, Stalinist, or ISIS state.
To progressives and liberals, recognition and respect for human, civil, political, social, economic, and cultural rights have been a fundamental thrust in the evolution of the Philippine polity, a process that has been influenced by landmark events in the history of democracy such as the French Revolution and the later struggles against colonialism, fascism, and Stalinism. Individual rights have been won in interconnected global struggles against ruling classes, imperial oppressors, corporations, and bureaucratic and military elites. This historical process has produced polities called liberal democracies and social democracies, the latter being distinguished by their greater stress on the achievement of the full range of positive rights, including universal social protection.
However, one must acknowledge that there has been a counter-thrust, one that has periodically emerged to challenge the primacy of the individual and human rights. This perspective places the state as the authority or arbiter of what “rights” the individual can enjoy, subordinates the welfare of the individual citizen to the security or needs of the state, and says that due process is principally one determined by the needs of the state and not by respect for the rights and welfare of the individual. This historical counter-thrust became dominant during the martial law period from 1972 to 1986 and it threatens to become dominant today, with support from a significant part of the citizenry.
The perils of Dutertismo
Currently, President Duterte embodies the view that refuses to recognize the universality of rights and denies due process to certain classes of people in the interest of combating crime and corruption. The majority of those who voted for him agreed with his stance. They form the social base of Dutertismo, a movement based on mass support for a leader who personifies the illiberal, extreme measures they feel is necessary to deal with crime, corruption, and other social problems.
At the risk of repeating ourselves, let us make 3 points with respect to this trend.
First, we do not question the goal of fighting crime. Indeed, we support it. But it cannot be achieved by trampling on human rights. No one has the right to take life except in the very special circumstance and in a very clear case of self-defense. Everyone is entitled to the enjoyment of those rights and their protection by the state. And if these rights must be limited for the greater good, then there must a legally sanctioned process to determine this. Wrongdoers must certainly be meted punishment, but even wrongdoers have rights and are entitled to due process.
Second, denying some classes of people these rights, as Duterte does, puts all of us on the slippery slope that could end up extending this denial to other groups, like one’s political enemies or people that “disrupt” public order, like anti-government demonstrators or people on striking for better pay. In this connection, remember that candidate Duterte threatened to kill workers who stood in the way of his economic development plans and made the blanket judgment that all journalists who had been assassinated were corrupt and deserved to be eliminated. That was no slip of the tongue.
Third, rights are indivisible. Measures that purportedly promote positive rights and advance the economic and social welfare of citizens rest on a fragile basis and can easily be taken back if they are not recognized as stemming from and resting on the basic right to life. Upholding positive rights while negating fundamental rights involves one not only in a logical but in a very real contradiction. To say I will liberate you from exploitation but hold your life hostage to your “good” behavior involves one in a contradiction that is ultimately unsustainable; this is the contradiction that unravelled the Stalinist socialiist states of Eastern Europe.
Strategic opposition
The President’s campaign and his program were driven by his depreciation of human rights and due process. There is a fundamental political cleavage in the country between those who support his views on human rights and due process and those opposed to them. Thus those of us who consider human rights and due process as core values cannot but find ourselves in strategic opposition to this administration.
Being in opposition does not mean denying the legitimacy of the administration. It means recognizing the legitimacy conferred by elections but registering disagreement with the central platform on which it was won, that is, the control of crime and corruption not through the rule of law but mainly through extrajudicial execution and violation of due process.
It is always difficult to be in opposition to a popular administration. This is why one must commend proven human rights stalwarts like Rep Teddy Baguilat and Edcel Lagman, who have stood up for principles and declared themselves in the minority or opposition even as the vast majority of their partymates in the Liberal Party jumped en masse into the Duterte bandwagon after the election to share in the spoils of the man they had opposed. More than their erstwhile comrades, Baguilat and Lagman know that popularity is fleeting, and it is not worth going against your principles to accommodate it.
But with the disintegration of a viable opposition in the House and Senate, the unpredictable posture of the Supreme Court, and silence in the bureaucracy (with the notable exception of the Commission on Human Rights), it becomes imperative that civil society must become the central locus of opposition.
Opposition does not mean total opposition. It means critical opposition, whereby one may support positive legislative measures proposed by the administration even as one maintains a strategic opposition to it owing to its violation of one’s core values and principles. In short, one should definitely support measures such as agrarian reform, an end to contractualization, institutionalization of the freedom of information, and the phasing out of mining, for these are progressive measures that can only redound to the welfare of society and the environment. But fundamental rights are fundamental rights, and since these basic rights are threatened by the philosophy and politics of the current administration, then one must stand strategically in opposition to it even as one supports its measures that enhance people’s positive rights.
Defense of one’s core values, however, is not the only reason for being in opposition. The existence of a strong opposition is the best defense of democracy, for nothing more surely leads to the dismantling of democracy than the concentration of power. In this regard, we believe the president when he says that he has no intention of remaining in power beyond 6 years. But, if we have learned anything from politics, it is that good intentions can easily be corrupted by absolute power. Paradoxically, the best way we can help President Duterte keep his promise is to provide him with a vigorous opposition.
In sum, a strong opposition based on the defense of universal human rights is the best way to ensure the future of Philippine democracy. – Rappler.com
By Socy major - Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11850343
An administration in search of an opposition
A strong opposition based on the defense of universal human rights is the best way to ensure the future of Philippine democracy
Walden Bello
July 10, 2016
The events of the last few weeks have engendered much goodwill towards the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte at the same that it has triggered apprehensions about where it is headed.
Hopes
The naming and shaming of 5 former and current police generals for their alleged involvement in the drug trade was only the most dramatic in a series of moves by the new president that elicited popular approval.
Hopes for a new social dispensation were stirred by several fast-moving events, among them a promise that the administration would end contractualization and an announcement that an executive order would institutionalize Freedom of Information. That a new deal was at hand for the marginalized sectors appeared imminent with the appointment of people associated with the National Democratic Front (NDF) to the top posts in the Department of Agrarian Reform, Department of Social Welfare and Development, and the National Anti-Poverty Commission.
Perhaps the appointment that drew the most applause from civil society was that of anti-mining advocate Gina Lopez as head of Department of the Environment and Natural Resources. Civil society also cheered when Mr Duterte blasted Lopez’s critic, mining magnate Manny Pangilinan, as “just a puppet of the foreign based Salim Group, while I am the chosen president of the Republic of the Philippines!”
Indeed, we seem to be entering not simply a new presidency but a new era.
Fears
Hopes, however, have mingled with fears. The spate of killings of suspected drug pushers and users triggered suspicions that crooked cops were getting rid of their accomplices or that they were acting on the green light to kill drug pushers and addicts with no or minimal attention to due process that they feel they had gotten from the president.
Words matter, said human rights advocates, worried that Duterte’s statements prior to his ascent to the presidency that citizens had the right to kill drug pushers if they resisted and his offering a higher bounty for dead rather than living criminals might already have inaugurated a wave of vigilantism that might claim innocent lives. This could easily degenerate, they said, into people settling scores with their enemies simply by branding them as pushers.
The numbers are grim: according to the Philippine Association of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA), there have been 163 killings since the May 9 elections, most but not all of them in violent encounters with the police.
The curious conjunction of moves that apparently promote economic and social rights with advocacy of extrajudicial killings has provoked two interesting responses. One is that we should not dwell too much on the president’s endorsement of extrajudicial killings or violations of due process since he is, after all, committed to taking measures that will advance the social and economic welfare of the marginalized masses. The second response is that what matters are not individual rights but “class rights,” and we should not bother too much with the “so-called rights” of people that belong to the exploiting classes and the criminal class or “lumpenproletariat.”
These views are worrisome. For one, the so-called social and economic reforms are still promises, and it may were well happen that they could be blocked or diluted by compromises with vested interests. But this is not the principal reason why these views are wrong and dangerous.
To focus first on the second response, one has only to recall the so-called “Ahos (‘Garlic’) Campaign” that ravaged the ranks of the left during the 1980’s to realize the terrible consequences of such a stance. Some 2000 people were killed with no regard for due process simply because they were arbitrarily branded as class enemies or “agents of the ruling class.” Although this view is now held by a distinct minority of progressives, its continuing influence in some sectors of the left must not be underestimated.
The first response – that we should give the President some leeway in his methods of dealing with crime since he is, after all, supportive of social and economic reform – is very popular. In fact, one can say that a very large number of those who voted for Duterte voted for him because they approved of his extreme measures to curb crime, along with his promise to root out corruption and his strong condemnation of poverty and inequality.
Now, given the poor record of previous administrations on law and order, one can certainly understand why people are fed up with and support drastic measures on crime and drugs. But the popularity of Duterte’s law and order stance does not make it right. One can definitely agree with Duterte supporters that the administration of justice is terrible, with too many crooks evading the law, but it is quite another thing to say that the way to deal with them is via extrajudicial execution and skipping due process altogether.
Fundamental rights and positive rights
When he first signaled his intention to run for the presidency last year, I said that Duterte’s candidacy would be good for democracy because it would force liberals and progressives to defend a proposition that they had long taken for granted: that human rights and due process are core values of Philippine society.
Let us now address this urgent task.
The right to life, right to freedom, right to be free from discrimination, and right to due process have often been called fundamental rights because they assert the intrinsic value of each person’s existence and underline that this value is not bestowed by the state or society. They are also often called “negative” rights or “inalienable” rights to stress that other individuals, corporate bodies, or the state have no right to take them away or violate them.
What have now come to be known as “positive rights” such as the right to be free from poverty, the right to a status of economic equality with others, and the right to a life with dignity are those rights that promote the attainment of conditions that allow the individual or group to develop fully as a human being. Positive rights – sometimes referred to as social, economic, and cultural rights – build on negative or fundamental rights. The recognition and institutionalization of fundamental rights may have been historically prior to the recognition and achievement of positive rights but the latter are necessary extensions of the former. Rights, in short, are indivisible, and positive rights have a fragile foundation in a state where the basic right to life is negated by leaders who claim to be promoting them.
Liberal democracy vs authoritarian rule
One of the key functions of the state is to secure the life and limbs of its citizens, but this must be accomplished while respecting the full range of rights of its citizens. There is a necessary tension between not violating individual rights and achieving security and political order. This healthy tension is what distinguishes the liberal democratic or social democratic state from the authoritarian, fascist, Stalinist, or ISIS state.
To progressives and liberals, recognition and respect for human, civil, political, social, economic, and cultural rights have been a fundamental thrust in the evolution of the Philippine polity, a process that has been influenced by landmark events in the history of democracy such as the French Revolution and the later struggles against colonialism, fascism, and Stalinism. Individual rights have been won in interconnected global struggles against ruling classes, imperial oppressors, corporations, and bureaucratic and military elites. This historical process has produced polities called liberal democracies and social democracies, the latter being distinguished by their greater stress on the achievement of the full range of positive rights, including universal social protection.
However, one must acknowledge that there has been a counter-thrust, one that has periodically emerged to challenge the primacy of the individual and human rights. This perspective places the state as the authority or arbiter of what “rights” the individual can enjoy, subordinates the welfare of the individual citizen to the security or needs of the state, and says that due process is principally one determined by the needs of the state and not by respect for the rights and welfare of the individual. This historical counter-thrust became dominant during the martial law period from 1972 to 1986 and it threatens to become dominant today, with support from a significant part of the citizenry.
The perils of Dutertismo
Currently, President Duterte embodies the view that refuses to recognize the universality of rights and denies due process to certain classes of people in the interest of combating crime and corruption. The majority of those who voted for him agreed with his stance. They form the social base of Dutertismo, a movement based on mass support for a leader who personifies the illiberal, extreme measures they feel is necessary to deal with crime, corruption, and other social problems.
At the risk of repeating ourselves, let us make 3 points with respect to this trend.
First, we do not question the goal of fighting crime. Indeed, we support it. But it cannot be achieved by trampling on human rights. No one has the right to take life except in the very special circumstance and in a very clear case of self-defense. Everyone is entitled to the enjoyment of those rights and their protection by the state. And if these rights must be limited for the greater good, then there must a legally sanctioned process to determine this. Wrongdoers must certainly be meted punishment, but even wrongdoers have rights and are entitled to due process.
Second, denying some classes of people these rights, as Duterte does, puts all of us on the slippery slope that could end up extending this denial to other groups, like one’s political enemies or people that “disrupt” public order, like anti-government demonstrators or people on striking for better pay. In this connection, remember that candidate Duterte threatened to kill workers who stood in the way of his economic development plans and made the blanket judgment that all journalists who had been assassinated were corrupt and deserved to be eliminated. That was no slip of the tongue.
Third, rights are indivisible. Measures that purportedly promote positive rights and advance the economic and social welfare of citizens rest on a fragile basis and can easily be taken back if they are not recognized as stemming from and resting on the basic right to life. Upholding positive rights while negating fundamental rights involves one not only in a logical but in a very real contradiction. To say I will liberate you from exploitation but hold your life hostage to your “good” behavior involves one in a contradiction that is ultimately unsustainable; this is the contradiction that unravelled the Stalinist socialiist states of Eastern Europe.
Strategic opposition
The President’s campaign and his program were driven by his depreciation of human rights and due process. There is a fundamental political cleavage in the country between those who support his views on human rights and due process and those opposed to them. Thus those of us who consider human rights and due process as core values cannot but find ourselves in strategic opposition to this administration.
Being in opposition does not mean denying the legitimacy of the administration. It means recognizing the legitimacy conferred by elections but registering disagreement with the central platform on which it was won, that is, the control of crime and corruption not through the rule of law but mainly through extrajudicial execution and violation of due process.
It is always difficult to be in opposition to a popular administration. This is why one must commend proven human rights stalwarts like Rep Teddy Baguilat and Edcel Lagman, who have stood up for principles and declared themselves in the minority or opposition even as the vast majority of their partymates in the Liberal Party jumped en masse into the Duterte bandwagon after the election to share in the spoils of the man they had opposed. More than their erstwhile comrades, Baguilat and Lagman know that popularity is fleeting, and it is not worth going against your principles to accommodate it.
But with the disintegration of a viable opposition in the House and Senate, the unpredictable posture of the Supreme Court, and silence in the bureaucracy (with the notable exception of the Commission on Human Rights), it becomes imperative that civil society must become the central locus of opposition.
Opposition does not mean total opposition. It means critical opposition, whereby one may support positive legislative measures proposed by the administration even as one maintains a strategic opposition to it owing to its violation of one’s core values and principles. In short, one should definitely support measures such as agrarian reform, an end to contractualization, institutionalization of the freedom of information, and the phasing out of mining, for these are progressive measures that can only redound to the welfare of society and the environment. But fundamental rights are fundamental rights, and since these basic rights are threatened by the philosophy and politics of the current administration, then one must stand strategically in opposition to it even as one supports its measures that enhance people’s positive rights.
Defense of one’s core values, however, is not the only reason for being in opposition. The existence of a strong opposition is the best defense of democracy, for nothing more surely leads to the dismantling of democracy than the concentration of power. In this regard, we believe the president when he says that he has no intention of remaining in power beyond 6 years. But, if we have learned anything from politics, it is that good intentions can easily be corrupted by absolute power. Paradoxically, the best way we can help President Duterte keep his promise is to provide him with a vigorous opposition.
In sum, a strong opposition based on the defense of universal human rights is the best way to ensure the future of Philippine democracy. – Rappler.com
By Socy major - Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11850343
Saturday, July 16, 2016
REPOST: Extra Judicial Killings: Normalizing Criminality Under the Guise of Peace and Order
(Read the original here.)
The Citizen’s Council for Human Rights (CCHR) strongly condemns the escalating number of killings of suspected drug pushers and drug dependents who said to have died either during so-called legitimate police operations or at the hands of unknown gunmen.
The surge in fatalities is too alarming to be ignored: from January 1 to May 9 this year (129 days), reported deaths from drug-related violence was 39. But the death count suddenly swelled after May 10. In a matter of 64 days, 251 deaths have already been reported. What makes these spate of executions most worrisome is that this was prompted by President Duterte’s pronouncements, made even before his assumption into office, that urged the police, ordinary citizens and later, the New Peoples Army to kill all those involved in the illegal drug trade, with the promise that he would shield them against any legal consequences.
Coming from the Chief Executive himself, this declaration legitimizes a system of crime response where the police and regular citizens become prosecutors, judges and executioners. The Criminal Justice System provides safeguards to protect suspected offenders and all citizens against arbitrary acts through transparency, and checks and balances. The arbitrary killing of suspects bypasses this system altogether,infringes on fundamental due process tenets and denies people the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The social costs and dangers of arbitrary methods should not be underestimated. The disregard of safeguards endangers everyone in Philippine society: anyone can now be accused of any crime or involvement in illegal drugs and be executed before and without having a chance to publicly defend themselves in court.There is no reason why these violations will not extend to law abiding citizens and human rights and environmental defenders, as in the case of Gloria Capitan, grandmother and campaigner for her community’s environmental rights.
Human Rights organizations and the CHR have spent over three decades sensitizing security forces on Human Rights values and ideals, but these efforts are about to be for naught.
Besides, Extra Judicial Executions, the Duterte administration’s war on drugs has inspired other excesses. At least one woman and a child has been sexually harassed in the course of operations. On many occasions, suspected drug peddlers and drug dependents, before having their day in court, are paraded in public places.
Apart from being an affront to the dignity of persons and their loved ones, shame campaigns and sexual harassment also undermine the well-being of communities and Philippine society in general. Such acts, categorized as psychological torture is prohibited by the Anti-Torture Act of 2009 or RA 9745. By allowing such illegal acts by authorities,we contribute to the culture haphazard, harmful and arbitrary dispensation of justice. Local Executives should treat drug dependents with compassion and facilitate their rehabilitation while ensuring that those involved in the drug trade are brought to justice through legitimate processes.
The Citizen’s Council for Human Rights does not believe these methods which deliberately violate the right to life, right to dignity and due process, will solve the country’s crime and illegal drugs problem. In fact, the social costs and dangers of employing extra-legal methods are high.
Finally, CCHR calls on the Duterte government to:
CCHR is a broad coalition of non-government organizations (NGOs), people’s organizations (POs), human rights lawyers, religious sector and members of the academe that came together to defend and assert human rights for all.
The Citizen’s Council for Human Rights (CCHR) strongly condemns the escalating number of killings of suspected drug pushers and drug dependents who said to have died either during so-called legitimate police operations or at the hands of unknown gunmen.
The surge in fatalities is too alarming to be ignored: from January 1 to May 9 this year (129 days), reported deaths from drug-related violence was 39. But the death count suddenly swelled after May 10. In a matter of 64 days, 251 deaths have already been reported. What makes these spate of executions most worrisome is that this was prompted by President Duterte’s pronouncements, made even before his assumption into office, that urged the police, ordinary citizens and later, the New Peoples Army to kill all those involved in the illegal drug trade, with the promise that he would shield them against any legal consequences.
Coming from the Chief Executive himself, this declaration legitimizes a system of crime response where the police and regular citizens become prosecutors, judges and executioners. The Criminal Justice System provides safeguards to protect suspected offenders and all citizens against arbitrary acts through transparency, and checks and balances. The arbitrary killing of suspects bypasses this system altogether,infringes on fundamental due process tenets and denies people the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The social costs and dangers of arbitrary methods should not be underestimated. The disregard of safeguards endangers everyone in Philippine society: anyone can now be accused of any crime or involvement in illegal drugs and be executed before and without having a chance to publicly defend themselves in court.There is no reason why these violations will not extend to law abiding citizens and human rights and environmental defenders, as in the case of Gloria Capitan, grandmother and campaigner for her community’s environmental rights.
Human Rights organizations and the CHR have spent over three decades sensitizing security forces on Human Rights values and ideals, but these efforts are about to be for naught.
Besides, Extra Judicial Executions, the Duterte administration’s war on drugs has inspired other excesses. At least one woman and a child has been sexually harassed in the course of operations. On many occasions, suspected drug peddlers and drug dependents, before having their day in court, are paraded in public places.
Apart from being an affront to the dignity of persons and their loved ones, shame campaigns and sexual harassment also undermine the well-being of communities and Philippine society in general. Such acts, categorized as psychological torture is prohibited by the Anti-Torture Act of 2009 or RA 9745. By allowing such illegal acts by authorities,we contribute to the culture haphazard, harmful and arbitrary dispensation of justice. Local Executives should treat drug dependents with compassion and facilitate their rehabilitation while ensuring that those involved in the drug trade are brought to justice through legitimate processes.
The Citizen’s Council for Human Rights does not believe these methods which deliberately violate the right to life, right to dignity and due process, will solve the country’s crime and illegal drugs problem. In fact, the social costs and dangers of employing extra-legal methods are high.
Finally, CCHR calls on the Duterte government to:
- Immediately stop the killings of suspected criminals and drug related offenders. Law enforcement authorities and government officials should abide by our criminal justice system, by securing warrants prior to arrest, strict observance of police rules of engagement and maximum tolerance in the arrest of suspects, filing of appropriate cases and bringing them to the BJMP without harm and allowing them to stand trial. The killing of suspects outside the rule of law is palliative and does not tackle the core of the crime and drug problems.
- Strictly prohibit LGU Executives and law enforcement units from implementing torture and dehumanizing methods in the fight against crime and drugs. The listing of and knocking on houses of persons suspected of peddling and using drugs to as well as the “walks of shame” destroy the humanity of persons and their families. These individuals are also deprived of their right to due process and to reintegrate with their communities with dignity.
- Professionalize and raise the human rights and respect for the rule of law standards of the PNP, PDEA, NBI and other law enforcement agencies and rid their ranks of those involved in corruption and syndicated crime. The most professional and efficient law enforcement agencies in the world are those which have solid human rights foundations and those that strictly adhere to the very laws they are tasked to uphold. Strict adherence to the Rule of Law, institutional safeguards and respect for human rights must be the cornerstones of Philippine law enforcement modernization and professionalization.
- Review and reform the criminal justice system and root out corruption in the prosecution service, courts, the BJMP and the Bucor as soon as possible with the view of making the whole system prompt and efficient in dispensing justice and reforming persons.
- Institute mechanisms widely accessible to ordinary Filipinos so that corruption, involvement in crime, violations to the rule of law and due process as well as extra judicial killings and other grave excesses can be promptly reported to relevant institutions.
- Review and reconsider state policy on drug addiction and make available and accessible proper drug rehabilitation programs and facilities to the majority of drug dependents who come from the poor. Drug dependents are persons who are ill and are victims of addictive substances. While the manufacture and sale of drugs are crimes, drug addiction is not. Drug abuse is a public health issue and it should be the DOH and its counterpart units at the LGU handling drug rehabilitation programs and facilities, not corrections officials. 60% of those in Philippine jails and penal institutions are incarcerated due to drug offenses under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2009 or RA 9165; these are people who need proper treatment.
- Invest in the realization of a life of dignity for all. Essential services such as education, health, housing, food and the commons such as water and electricity and other basic needs which people need to get out of poverty and become productive members of Philippine society, should be democratized. These requirements of a life of dignity provide people with economic and social opportunities, enabling them to pave their way out of often unbearable conditions which engender anti-social values and behavior. We should address the roots of rampant crime and extensive drug trade and abuse as well as many other social problems by stamping out poverty and social idleness. These social levelers include a good public education which exists for the benefit of public order. Currently, we waste human resources because so many in poor communities are unskilled, when they could contribute to nation building. When all in Philippine society enjoy a productive life of dignity, there will be few left who are prone and vulnerable to dysfunctional behavior or predisposed to a life of crime and drugs.
- Halt all initiatives toward the reimposition of the Death Penalty and the lowering of the age of discernment.
- Investigate and prosecute the authorities responsible for human rights violations in the course of the drug war implementation. Justice must be served to the families of those killed, tortured and to those who suffered from sexual harassment.
Stop the killings and shame campaigns! No to vigilantism!
Address the root cause of social problems!
Bring offenders to justice through due process and the rule of law!
CCHR is a broad coalition of non-government organizations (NGOs), people’s organizations (POs), human rights lawyers, religious sector and members of the academe that came together to defend and assert human rights for all.
Thursday, July 14, 2016
How much are Filipinos making these days?
The national average income of Filipino families according to official statistics is P235,000, or around P19,600 monthly for a family with five members. As with other indicators, that average rises to a comparatively higher P379,000 in the National Capital Region.
That figure is actually misleading, since the national average is driven up by income from the top 10% of the population whose annual family wealth is three times that of the national average. Accounting only for the 90% of Filipino families without this fabulously rich bunch would yield a mean P181,000 annual earnings, or P15,000 monthly, which is probably closer to the reality of the average Pinoy household.
Inequality remains notable. The richest families earn ten times as much as the poorest families on a national average, with those belonging to the top decile mentioned earlier earning P715,000 a year or P60,000 a month. In Metro Manila, the top income earning families earn P83,000 a month, which means they make more in a month what the poorest Filipinos do in 14 months (1 year, 2 months).
The richest 10% of Filipino families own no less than 30% of the nation's wealth. The rest divide the 70% among themselves, but those in the poorest decile have only a meager 3% share, or P147 billion. The PSA's Table 7 is a reminder of what Capitalism is basically all about: The concentration of wealth for those already at the top of the pyramid.
The news is that inequality did not change in the first three years of the Aquino administration. According to the PSA, "the income of families in all per capita income deciles had hardly changed within the period 2009-2012." The next batch of survey results similar to where these figures were taken are not due until February 2017.
What do the figures from the poorest decile actually mean? It means that 10.7 million Filipinos belong to 2.1 million Filipino families whose income does not exceed P6,000 monthly. Or, that's 10.7 million Filipinos living on just about P40 a day.
It also shows ineffective measurement. The statistics agency notes that families in the poorest decile had expenses exceeding their income (what they do to make ends meet is anybody's guess).
Expenditures consist mainly of food (because the poorest spend more on food, or 62.3%, as a portion of their earnings compared with the rich). If even P40 per individual does not meet daily needs, statistics that officially peg the individual poverty threshold at P30 (which is what we actually have) are putting it at a very low margin.
The government currently puts official poverty at 26.3% (or around 26 million Filipinos since were about a hundred million). It appears that number is bound to be a bit more higher.
That figure is actually misleading, since the national average is driven up by income from the top 10% of the population whose annual family wealth is three times that of the national average. Accounting only for the 90% of Filipino families without this fabulously rich bunch would yield a mean P181,000 annual earnings, or P15,000 monthly, which is probably closer to the reality of the average Pinoy household.
Inequality remains notable. The richest families earn ten times as much as the poorest families on a national average, with those belonging to the top decile mentioned earlier earning P715,000 a year or P60,000 a month. In Metro Manila, the top income earning families earn P83,000 a month, which means they make more in a month what the poorest Filipinos do in 14 months (1 year, 2 months).
The richest 10% of Filipino families own no less than 30% of the nation's wealth. The rest divide the 70% among themselves, but those in the poorest decile have only a meager 3% share, or P147 billion. The PSA's Table 7 is a reminder of what Capitalism is basically all about: The concentration of wealth for those already at the top of the pyramid.
The news is that inequality did not change in the first three years of the Aquino administration. According to the PSA, "the income of families in all per capita income deciles had hardly changed within the period 2009-2012." The next batch of survey results similar to where these figures were taken are not due until February 2017.
What do the figures from the poorest decile actually mean? It means that 10.7 million Filipinos belong to 2.1 million Filipino families whose income does not exceed P6,000 monthly. Or, that's 10.7 million Filipinos living on just about P40 a day.
It also shows ineffective measurement. The statistics agency notes that families in the poorest decile had expenses exceeding their income (what they do to make ends meet is anybody's guess).
Expenditures consist mainly of food (because the poorest spend more on food, or 62.3%, as a portion of their earnings compared with the rich). If even P40 per individual does not meet daily needs, statistics that officially peg the individual poverty threshold at P30 (which is what we actually have) are putting it at a very low margin.
The government currently puts official poverty at 26.3% (or around 26 million Filipinos since were about a hundred million). It appears that number is bound to be a bit more higher.
Sunday, July 10, 2016
Philippine poverty right now
As the name states, this will be a blog about Philippine economics and politics that's supposed to be run by a Leftist (i.e. me). I'm doing this blog because we do live in interesting times under new President Rodrigo Duterte. As of this time, most of the people I've talked to are adopting a wait-and-see attitude toward him. This is interesting, considering that his "Negatives" column list down killings and human rights violations. Apparently his other things about him are balancing out that otherwise troubling fact.
I'm not confident of being able to follow through with updates, and this is not the first time I've attempted to blog. So hopefully this works.
So, immediately down to business, we need some base lines. Where are we at. Or, how fucked up are we? I did a quick search and also looked at articles from Ibon, the local Establishment Left's think tank. (This industrialization pitch is a good read.) I plan to stick to covering only a bare minimum of data points that fall within my concerns. Poverty and wage numbers are, of course, a must.
Poverty
It's a terrific country, any way you look at it. Out of a hundred million Filipinos, some 26 million are poor (26.3% poverty incidence as of the latest official statistics). Poor means these folks below the poverty threshold of P10,969 annually, or P30 pesos a day. The running joke has always been, you have P30 right now, you're fine.
The figure is a national average, which does not mean that when you walk out in the street to congregate with your fellow Pinoys in Manila's malls, one out of every four souls you'd meet is poor. The NCR itself has a poverty incidence of 6.5%. The problem is, since 2006, it's been rising. Poverty incidence in the capital has increased from 4.4%, 5.3%, 5.4%, to the great leap backward at 6.5%, from 2006, 2009, 2012 and 2015 respectively. If I recall, administration bet Roxas failed in the national capital. This should be one of the reasons. Of course it may be due to urban migration due to the influx of Pinoys from the provinces.
Speaking of the provinces. As of the first half of 2015, the poorest regions in the Philippines (and their corresponding poverty incidence percentages by population) are:
1. ARMM: 59.0
2. Region VIII Samar-Leyte: 47.3
3. Region XII Cotabato: 44.5
4. Caraga Region: 43.9
5. Bukidnon 40.9
Mindanao is definitely buying it. Duterte's region, Davao, itself has a poverty incidence of 26.7%, which is still just above the national average, although only five other regions (NCR, IVA, Central Luzon, Isabela and Ilocos) actually beat the national figure.
Throughout the country, the only other places outside of the NCR that produce single-digit poverty rates are Bulacan, Pampanga, Laguna and Benguet. Excluding the last, these are most probably just due to the fact that people in these provinces actually work in Metro Manila. All roads lead to Makati and Ortigas, whether you're the smart, fast-paced English-speaking yuppie or the toilet bowl cleaner serving those yuppies. Benguet of course is the seat of Baguio.
The thing is obviously systemic. Another way of saying that provinces all over the country did not just decide one by one to jump into the poverty ship. We have good reason to think they don't actually like to be there, and have attempted to get out. Something drove them. The question is whether Duterte will get to have a look at what did.
Any way you put it, 26 million individuals categorized as poor by official standards is not a way to make a society, least of them a "happy" one. I currently don't have comparative figures for other countries in the Southeast Asian region. All I know is, whenever I look at the product details of the grocery items (food), they're all showing as coming from Thailand.
I'm not confident of being able to follow through with updates, and this is not the first time I've attempted to blog. So hopefully this works.
So, immediately down to business, we need some base lines. Where are we at. Or, how fucked up are we? I did a quick search and also looked at articles from Ibon, the local Establishment Left's think tank. (This industrialization pitch is a good read.) I plan to stick to covering only a bare minimum of data points that fall within my concerns. Poverty and wage numbers are, of course, a must.
Poverty
It's a terrific country, any way you look at it. Out of a hundred million Filipinos, some 26 million are poor (26.3% poverty incidence as of the latest official statistics). Poor means these folks below the poverty threshold of P10,969 annually, or P30 pesos a day. The running joke has always been, you have P30 right now, you're fine.
The figure is a national average, which does not mean that when you walk out in the street to congregate with your fellow Pinoys in Manila's malls, one out of every four souls you'd meet is poor. The NCR itself has a poverty incidence of 6.5%. The problem is, since 2006, it's been rising. Poverty incidence in the capital has increased from 4.4%, 5.3%, 5.4%, to the great leap backward at 6.5%, from 2006, 2009, 2012 and 2015 respectively. If I recall, administration bet Roxas failed in the national capital. This should be one of the reasons. Of course it may be due to urban migration due to the influx of Pinoys from the provinces.
Speaking of the provinces. As of the first half of 2015, the poorest regions in the Philippines (and their corresponding poverty incidence percentages by population) are:
1. ARMM: 59.0
2. Region VIII Samar-Leyte: 47.3
3. Region XII Cotabato: 44.5
4. Caraga Region: 43.9
5. Bukidnon 40.9
Mindanao is definitely buying it. Duterte's region, Davao, itself has a poverty incidence of 26.7%, which is still just above the national average, although only five other regions (NCR, IVA, Central Luzon, Isabela and Ilocos) actually beat the national figure.
Throughout the country, the only other places outside of the NCR that produce single-digit poverty rates are Bulacan, Pampanga, Laguna and Benguet. Excluding the last, these are most probably just due to the fact that people in these provinces actually work in Metro Manila. All roads lead to Makati and Ortigas, whether you're the smart, fast-paced English-speaking yuppie or the toilet bowl cleaner serving those yuppies. Benguet of course is the seat of Baguio.
The thing is obviously systemic. Another way of saying that provinces all over the country did not just decide one by one to jump into the poverty ship. We have good reason to think they don't actually like to be there, and have attempted to get out. Something drove them. The question is whether Duterte will get to have a look at what did.
Any way you put it, 26 million individuals categorized as poor by official standards is not a way to make a society, least of them a "happy" one. I currently don't have comparative figures for other countries in the Southeast Asian region. All I know is, whenever I look at the product details of the grocery items (food), they're all showing as coming from Thailand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)