Lernaean Hydra: the battle against impunity and its many layers

I’d say it was a pretty masterful job all round, wouldn’t you? I mean, it's positively breathtaking: the Supreme Court, COMELEC, Congress, the party-lists and computerized balloting, not to mention the warlords, the military and the police? Erap no longer the lone administration spoiler with Manny Villar (among others) now apparently in tow as well? Yes, indeed -- I’d have to say the Palace had all its bases covered. No doubt about it: a pretty thorough rigging all round.

I know I’ve been somewhat scarce of late. It started out with a laborious (if ultimately ineffectual) attempt to make sense of COMELEC’s party-list inclusions and exclusions, as well as the Supreme Court’s decision not to require public officials to relinquish their current positions if they hoped to run for elective posts in 2010. By the time the Ampatuan massacre had taken place, I was in a quiet state of rage. The overweening arrogance and sense of impunity with which Andal Ampatuan, Jr and his people comported themselves, COMELEC’s cavalier decision to make Shariff Aguak the site of the provincial capitol (where Toto Mangudadatu would have had to file his candidacy but which happened to be in Ampatuan territory, despite the well-publicized rift between the two clans), and the AFP’s decision not to escort the Mangudadatu convoy deeply troubled me, particularly in view of what it all implied about the central government’s role in the entire massacre. And what of those arms caches found in the properties of the Ampatuans, clearly bearing DND markings?

In the aftermath, as lurid and gory details began to emerge in swift and unabashed succession, a forensic anthropologist’s nightmare would ensue, in large part due to the poor handling and contamination of the victims’ remains and the massacre site itself: http://pcij.org/stories/report-of-the-humanitarian-and-fact-finding-mission-to-maguindanao/

Worse, the charge of rebellion in the context of martial law suggested that the offences were bailable and the perpetrators could still be granted amnesty. It was no wonder, then, that as of March of this year, the Philippines had already ranked sixth in the Global Impunity Index (http://cpj.org/reports/2009/03/getting-away-with-murder-2009.php); immediately after the massacre, of course, the country quickly became the “worst on record” for journalists worldwide: http://cpj.org/2009/11/maguindanao-death-toll-worst-for-press-in-recent-h.php. So, apart from Senators Biazon and Gordon, why were not more Senators and Congressmen calling for an investigation into the source/s of the arms caches that had suddenly been “discovered” in Maguindanao?

By the time COMELEC had announced that Grace Padaca, Ed Panlilio, Brig Gen Danny Lim and Danton Remoto had been disqualified, the burning question needed to be asked: could it be that all these institutions were in GMA’s pocket? Where does a nation turn to when its leaders, lawmakers, judiciary and law enforcement personnel routinely flout -- rather than uphold -- the rule of law? Were there anthropological underpinnings to this culture of impunity or was it purely a function of economic scarcity?

You can well understand why the sheer scale of this Lernaean Hydra (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Mythology/LernaeanHydra.html) had left me at an utter loss. To many, of course, much of this was nothing new: indeed, a cursory sweep of recent history indicated that the most egregious offenses have tended to be swept under the rug altogether: US abandonment of the Philippines during the Japanese occupation; MacArthur and the “collaborators” hailed as heroes (indeed, with Manuel Roxas eventually becoming President); Cory not pursuing Marcos and his henchmen for the ill-gotten wealth and human rights violations; FVR remaining remarkably quiet about Danding; and GMA pardoning Erap despite his precedent-setting conviction. As my buddy Mac mournfully observed one evening: “These are the big-time cases, Lil — no wonder the little guys are so sure they can get away with murder: they can. The precedents are set.”

Surreal in the extreme, you will agree, to be listening to a congressional debate about martial law led by Enrile, of all people, the guy whose fake ambush had been the initial excuse for Marcos' declaration. Not to mention all the coup attempts he backed against Cory, indirectly stunting the country’s economic recovery. Hadn’t he even been charged with rebellion at one point? I suppose one could argue that this qualified him as an expert of sorts…

But what exactly was going on here, I had to wonder? Could the Constitution be part of the problem? Should more of these crimes be considered statutory? From where I sit, it would appear that the higher courts tend to be constantly clogged with cases that could effectively be addressed in the lower courts. USAID goes on to suggest that it is not only the backlog of cases in the courts but the fact that legal personnel are grossly underpaid that explains the nature of this corruption trap:

http://philippines.usaid.gov/dg_programs_judicial_reform.html

It would also seem to be the case that there is a shortage of lawyers, at least those who are willing to practice in trial courts.

Philippine law

Now I am certainly no lawyer but I have spent some time struggling with various bills and legal systems in an attempt to understand our various options in the Ampatuan case. I am also blessed enough to have friends who happen to be lawyers and who have remained remarkably patient with me despite my repeated badgering… But I should add that I don’t have free and easy access to any international lawyers (both of the ones I know happen to be in the Hague at the moment and are swamped with the Milosevic case) so I have had to extrapolate on my own. I would argue, however, that the law is not rocket science, after all, and should be accessible to any citizen with enough concern and commitment, so here’s my take…

This piece was largely inspired by an increasing sense of inquietude at the thought that the perpetrators (apart from Andal, Jr, who was charged before the establishment of martial law and therefore with far more binding crimes than “rebellion”, unlike Andal, Sr, the actual mastermind of the operation) might eventually be granted amnesty. Of course, they would be charged with crimes punishable under the Constitution, the Revised Penal Code and other criminal laws. But the Revised Penal Code defines rebellion as “rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing allegiance from said Government the territory of the Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof…or depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.” As it is, rebellion is notoriously difficult to prove, but it can certainly be argued that it has variously been committed by: a.) specific Muslim separatists attempting to secede; b.) certain communist rebels attempting to violently overthrow the government; and c.) a handful of soldier rebels trying to unseat the Philippine president. But by Gloria’s primary allies in Maguindanao, to whom she remains eternally indebted for those large-scale election "victories" in 2004 and 2007? Hardly.

Unfortunately, bail remains a matter of right for non-capital offenses, although there is good reason to believe that Judge Solis-Reyes may refuse to grant it simply in deference to public outrage. Whether she is safer if the perpetrators remain incarcerated or if they are eventually freed is a matter of opinion, of course. There is after all a fairly sizeable Ampatuan army still out there able to carry out the family’s bidding either way…

I am told that amnesty remains unlikely, however. For instance, we can grant "amnesty" to insurgents who lay down their arms or rogue members of the military who decide to go back into the government fold. But the perpetrators have already been charged, so that does not appear to be an option (unless the charges are thrown out altogether because of the ultimately unconstitutional establishment of martial law). On the other hand, what may very well happen (and this is something we need to remain vigilant about) is a presidential pardon after the convictions have been made. This would not happen during this presidency but in the next one, since such trials tend to take an inordinately long time, as many of you know. All the more reason why we need to be wary of Gibo Teodoro, who has brilliantly tried to distance himself from the arms caches and private armies that burgeoned wildly in Maguindanao under his watch at the DND. Similarly, highly placed (and very reliable sources) have informed me that Villar is a GMA spoiler, and that he plans to push for charter change as soon as he gets into office. GMA, once again the invisible hand, plans to sit as Prime Minister if and when this happens. Like any good businesswoman, she has simply placed her bets on several horses at the same time, so as to ensure victory no matter what.

I would therefore be interested in hearing what the remaining candidates –- Noynoy and Bro Eddie, in particular –- have to say about how they plan to make these perpetrators accountable. A lackadaisical pandering to popularity and big money, which would entail a presidential pardon, is non-negotiable, at least in so far as my personal vote is concerned. The massacre is simply far too gruesome and unprecedented to remain unpunished.

Hope for the future

GMA recently signed Republic Act 9851, which is widely regarded as a milestone for human rights:

http://www.mb.com.ph/node/233710/human-right

Of course, “with a reported 1,013 extra-judicial killings, 202 enforced disappearances, 223 political prisoners, and 1,036 incidences of torture since 2001, the Arroyo regime's record rivals that of the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos and has drawn sharp criticism from the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Karapatan national human rights alliance group.” Oplan Bantay Laya alone, the government’s anti-insurgency programme, has already led to the loss of hundreds of human lives. How the government will deal with the issue of command responsibility over crimes against humanity (such as the Ampatuan massacre), which is specified in the law, remains to be seen.

There have been a number of other initiatives as well, although many have yet to be passed into law. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago recently presented Senate Bill Number (SBN) 1861 in the Senate (An Act Defining and Penalizing Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law and Other Serious International Crimes, Adopting Corresponding Principles of Criminal Responsibility Applying Universal Jurisdiction): http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/63375665%21.pdf

SBN 2669, which has yet to be approved as well, further aims to define and penalize crimes against international humanitarian law: the bill consolidates Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s bill with SBN 1446 by Senator Richard Gordon, SBN 583 by Senator Jinggoy Estrada, SBN 1542 by Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri and SBN 2589 by Senator Manny Villar. The counterpart bills in the Lower House include HBN 1748 by Representative Roilo Golez, HBN 2591 by Representative Simeon Datumanong and HBN 3002 by Representative Rufus Rodriguez.

So: the legislative efforts at the national level are apparently there. But the point is that the new law (RA 9851), at least in spirit and intent, will theoretically protect the rights and security of innocent civilians who are exposed to internal armed conflicts (that is, if the executive branch and its generals are ready to enforce the law against themselves). There’s the rub, see...

International options

In fact, we’ve had a pretty weak record internationally when it comes to international human rights and humanitarian law. Now Leila de Lima, whom I respect greatly (although I would argue that her energies are best spent not on unnecessary worry about Andal, Jr having been bonked on the head by an overly animated journalist), has said that, if this case is not adequately resolved by Philippine courts, the Commission on Human Rights will not hesitate to present it to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague. I could not make sense of the reference simply because the ICJ deals with conflicts between states, while the International Criminal Court (ICC) deal with conflicts within them. Clearly, this is an intra-state issue and not an inter-state one, in which case the appropriate body would be the ICC.

The Philippines has signed the Rome Statute to the ICC but regrettably has not ratified it. To his credit, Erap did sign the treaty but, when GMA came into power in 2001, she did not give the Senate the opportunity to ratify it. Her government reportedly did not want to become a member because of fears that allegations of human rights violations might be made against them in international tribunals. But the even more compelling reason, of course, has to do with our symbiotic ties to the US. More specifically, the American Servicemen Protection Act stipulates that countries that have become members of the ICC will no longer receive US military aid. In addition, any government that detains an American soldier and files a case against him/her before the ICC has to be prepared for the fact that the US will undertake military action to free its soldier. Clearly this is about currying favor in order to obtain US aid, on the one hand, just as it demonstrates the masterful strategies the US tends to deploy in matters of bilateral “exchange,” on the other.

The only other international option for now appears to be the UN Human Rights Council, specifically the International Protocol to the International Covenant to Civil and Political Rights: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/procedure.htm

While it arguably has limited enforcement mechanisms, several countries have already amended their laws as a result of decisions made by the Committee. In a number of cases, prisoners have been released and compensation paid to victims of human rights violations. In 1990, the Committee instituted a mechanism to assist it in monitoring more closely whether states parties have given effect to its final decisions, and it has been encouraging to note that they have been largely cooperative.

Of course, the Covenant requires that domestic remedies be first exhausted. In this case, therefore, the Philippines would have the obligation to prosecute the perpetrators of the massacre to begin with. If the convictions are deemed inadequate, any injured parties (survivors, relatives of loved ones) would have the right to present their case before the international body. Karen Vertido, a victim of an alleged rape in 1996, for example, eventually chose to present her case to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) after the presiding judge in the Philippines decided to acquit her attacker. While the case remains pending for now, it will eventually be resolved, reminding us that this is an option available to ordinary citizens all over the world. Technically, a strong case could be made not for genocide or state-sponsored violence, but for designating the Ampatuan massacre as a crime against humanity.

Additional recommendations:

1.) An examination of the massacre case files suggests that there had been systemic favoritism towards the Ampatuans and government mishandling throughout. Indeed, had so many journalists not fallen – had the victims “merely” been Muslims, say -- the public outcry might not have been quite as vociferous. Education and training programmes for trial court judges and government personnel (specifically for victims of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, dealing with threats from the accused and cultural impartiality in general) are therefore clearly necessary. A monitoring system for trial court decisions in cases of rido and human rights atrocities should also be established to ensure their compliance with human rights conventions. Data on the number of such cases filed in prosecution offices and the courts should also be compiled and analyzed. It is further recommended that victims be provided with the right to appeal in cases of acquittal that are anchored on discriminatory grounds.

2.) Training of medical, police and military personnel is equally critical because valuable forensic evidence in this case was lost or mishandled due to a lack of technical skill. Funds will have to be allocated for providing this training since effective forensics work is at the forefront of the battle against impunity. The conditions that would allow the enforcement of the law -- its enabling environment, as it were -- are not yet entirely in place. While additional laws could and should be passed, it is clear that we have a serious law enforcement problem as well.

3.) The material conditions in the criminal justice system are as important, if not more so, than the mere promulgation of laws. The salaries of legal, military and medical personnel should therefore be commensurate with the type of work they routinely put in every day: otherwise, they may simply resort to corruption in order to survive. As they (trial lawyers in particular) are at the front lines of law enforcement, they should be considered to be a priority. Establishing such a system is crucial so that human rights cannot be arbitrarily ignored in cases where the government does not support the victim. Examining the process of implementating laws is even more important, in many ways, than solely monitoring legislation itself.

4.) To what can the backlog in the courts be attributed? Could more cases be turned over to the lower courts? I would be grateful for some feedback here…

5.) Education is equally vital, and the reassessment of school curricula and textbooks in terms of violence and respect for human rights may be necessary. In Muslim areas, tolerance for the realities of rido should be re-examined, just as stereotypes about Muslims in mainstream texts should be carefully scrutinized as well. How are Muslims represented in these different contexts and what alternatives to rido are presented? Do they take into account indigenous cultures, on the one hand, and international mechanisms for conflict negotiation, on the other? Rido between two pro-government Muslim clans, on the one hand, and between an insurgent group like Abu Sayyaf and a pro-government group (whether Muslim or Christian), on the other, will also have to be clearly distinguished in these texts and in public perception itself.

6.) The Mindanao civil society statement is fairly comprehensive, and addresses such issues as the disarmament of the CVOs, the total disbanding of the private armies of all political clans, and the call for government to uphold the constitutional provisions that ban private armed groups: http://durianpost.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/mindanao-civil-society-statement-on-the-ampatuan-massacre/

7.) Truth and reconciliation commissions have gone a long way in healing post-conflict societies like Rwanda, El Salvador and South Africa. They could theoretically have a profound impact on Philippine society because they can potentially open the national dialogue on impunity: http://www.ictj.org/en/news/coverage/article/3305.html

8.) Zero tolerance for bribery at all levels of society -- whether they are being made or accepted by lawmakers, the judiciary, government employees, candidates for public office, or members of the military and police. Media watchdogs, as well as NGOs such as Transparency International, need to highlight such exchanges as and when they happen so the public can make its own assessments. For its part, the public needs to resist the temptation to accept bribes and to choose candidates that are merely entertaining and appealing for superficial reasons. Candidates that are known for their corruption and lack of respect for human rights, however attractive, should be regarded with wariness because they are likely to recommit these self-same crimes in future contexts.

9.) Ideally, zero tolerance for impunity should be the hallmark of the next administration. Failing this, however, it is up to civil society to peacefully demonstrate in public rallies or in petitions and in the blogosphere, etc, to make sure their voices are heard. At a certain point, the government will have to take the sheer numbers into account and respond accordingly.

The Filipino-American contribution

10.) It should be noted that the US would prefer to push for charter change because 100% foreign ownership of Philippine companies is in its interests, as opposed to the mere 40% the current Constitution allows. The US military is also primarily Republican and will no doubt support the candidate who is pro-VFA. Put rather bluntly, the potential exchange of funds from the former to the latter could be fairly sizeable indeed.

In view of the global economic crisis, the US, China and others are obviously looking for resources all over the world as well. It should be noted that the metallic deposits in Mindanao include lead, zinc, ore, iron, copper, chromite, magnetite and gold; in fact, gold mined in the region accounts for nearly half of the national gold reserves. Mindanao also has significant oil and natural gas reserves. It therefore comes as no surprise that foreign companies have had their eye on it for some time. The fact that conflict is being fomented so as to spur the US-led global arms trade is a remote (if somewhat unthinkable) possibility. Either way, the Philippines in general, and Mindanao in particular, are strategically and geopolitically critical for the US in terms of such concerns as global terrorism (Abu Sayyaf/MILF at home, Jemah Islamiyah next door, and links to Wahabi Islam in the Middle East, a region that can be directly accessed by unpatrolled waterways in the Philippines) and the threat of China in the region, for example.

So it would make sense if the US candidate of choice were Gibo, not on the merits of his person but because of where he stands ideologically in reference to the US. But since Gibo is heavily implicated in the arms caches and private armies in Maguindanao and elsewhere, and since he has supported GMA throughout (never having once criticized her), the issue is no longer about parliamentary change but about GMA’s ambitions, which we cannot allow to flourish. Fil-Am groups in the US have petitioned for $2b of the $33b in military aid to the Philippines to be tied to human rights. But since we do require arms for our own geopolitical and internal security, perhaps it might make more sense to request that all aid be tied to human rights. In other words, could we make an acceptable human rights record a prerequisite for US aid in general, whether military or otherwise?

11.) Instead of direct aid alone, perhaps the US could loan equipment to the Philippine military with a maintenance agreement (i.e., the US could maintain the inventory, audit and maintenance contract, for example). This way, the Philippines would get the equipment but would be unable to sell it on the black market. This is an urgent concern because many of the arms used by warlords, as well as by the MILF and Abu Sayyaf, are often sold on the black market by rogue members of the Philippine military (as may well be the case with the Ampatuans). The Philippines could then pay a small maintenance cost and in turn would get continued upgrades in terms of equipment and technology.

12.) An independent investigation into the massacre is urgently needed, in view of the very real possibilities of a whitewash, as Rep Howard Berman’s recent US Congressional bill has demanded: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.CON.RES.218:

13.) Independent monitors on the ground before and during the upcoming elections will also be critical to minimize widespread cheating. Fil-Ams and the international community as a whole should continue to press for this.

14.) While the Philippines greatly appreciates the support provided by the US and other countries after typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng, what is really needed in the long-term is the transfer of technology and know-how to the country. Helping us develop cutting-edge innovations and technologies -- through education, training and technology transfer -- would make us more genuinely competitive in the global market. This technology will naturally have to take into account the realities of the tropics and the specificities of Philippine conditions.

For instance, the former Subic base could be used as an investment conduit for the US and foreign private sector with a preference for small-medium green-tech solution projects (manufacturing and research, etc), targeting specific regions with additional livelihood programmes. This would allow the Philippines to leap-frog industrialization and make the regions more autonomous from the main power corporations currently supplying the entire country.

A final word. Fareed Zakaria would describe the Philippines to be an “illiberal democracy.” As he points out, the bedrock on which democracy is built -- constitutional liberalism or the rule of law as the centrepiece of social organization itself — is far more foundationally important than voting and mere elections. We do, in fact, have a fairly decent Constitution and set of laws (although some revisions would not be unwelcome) but are ultimately weak in matters of enforcement. This is because dictatorship, impunity and corruption have tended to supersede the rule of law.

We cannot have the kind of economic development Zakaria deems necessary for the lessening of human rights violations if our leaders keep pocketing the spoils. As he so aptly put it in “The Future of Freedom”: “Modern democracies will face difficult new challenges -- fighting terrorism, adjusting to globalization, adapting to an aging society – and they will have to make their system work much better than it currently does. That means making democratic decision-making effective, reintegrating constitutional liberalism into the practice of democracy, rebuilding broken political institutions and civic associations. Perhaps most difficult of all, it requires that those with immense power in our societies embrace their responsibilities, lead and set standards that are not only legal, but moral. Without this inner stuffing, democracy will become an empty shell, not simply inadequate but potentially dangerous, bringing with it the erosion of liberty, the manipulation of freedom, and the decay of common life.”

It is high time we chose leaders who would not allow democracy to become yet another empty shell, who have the inner stuffing to choose what is ethical over what is lucrative, and who would frown upon impunity as a crime against the ancestors who built our nation, the history that forged our consciousness and humanity as a whole.

Image: Hercules and the Lernaean Hydra, 1490s, parcel-gilt bronze, Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Florence: http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/arts/scultpureplastic/sculpture/bigphotos/A/hercules.jpg

Descending into Bathos: on substance, critical thinking and the nature of the public discourse

The overarching issues

So my buddy Peter and I were grumbling over gyoza one rainy NY evening. Where are all the policy platforms?, I exhorted. Where do the candidates respectively stand on issues like the VFA, the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty, the MILF/MNLF/Abu, indigenous populations and Muslim/tribal land, land reform, free/fair trade and protectionism, family planning, corruption charges against the Macapagal-Arroyos (and the Marcoses, for that matter, although I wasn’t about to hold my breath) and the environment? What were the policy directives going forward to ensure that the post-Ondoy and Pepeng flooding fiascos never happened again? Because they would happen again, of course, since typhoons and other environmental disasters are simply a reality in our little corner of the planet. I wanted to hear more about urban planning, zoning and waste management, and had been encouraged to see Miriam DS’s efforts to at least penalize people/groups who continued to inhabit waterway intrusions.

But why did everything still have to be so dumbed down, we wondered, as if Filipinos didn’t have the equipment to understand the critical issues that informed their everyday realities and very existence? Wasn’t all this genuflection towards personality rather than party ideology -- the infernal carousel of singing and dancing and the kissing of babies -- a form of elitism that was ultimately infantilizing the public?

Because it seemed to me that the onus was on the candidates to learn to communicate these urgent concerns in ways that were directly accessible, rather than concluding that the people were incapable of comprehending them. What this has led to, regrettably, is a public discourse that often alternates between a kind of mud-slinging (which does not of course include some of our finest writers and thinkers), on the one hand, and sustained adulation, on the other. Pathos descending into bathos, it has all become a rather crass form of popular entertainment. What Peter and I wanted, in short, was a little substance.

Now Manolo Quezon might argue that we Fil-Ams in the US are complaining again about the Philippines, but I would venture to suggest that the argument stands. With OFW remittances to the Philippines likely to reach $17 billion this year -- a large bulk of which comes from the US -- the potential Fil-Am contribution to the Philippines is nothing to sniff at, particularly in terms of funds and potential votes. After all, we had all contributed a great deal to the post-Ondoy/Pepeng relief efforts, particularly in terms of mobilizing the Pinoy NGO groups here in the US. The social capital we represented was enormous (Peter is a brilliant investment analyst on Wall St, for instance), and could only be an asset to the country.

There should, moreover, be nothing wrong with demanding that the public discourse be constructive, critical, stripped of family and political loyalties, and a form of civic engagement. Because America (to use an example with which we are all no doubt familiar) -- for all its foibles and embellisments, its similar propensity to dumb things down -- had attempted to do at least that during its recent presidential debates. However problematic they eventually became, they at least presented some of the hard issues – Afghanistan, Iraq, health care, big business and gay rights, to name just a few – to a largely under-educated public.

So how was the Filipino public supposed to decide on the issues, if we could only speculate on where the candidates stood? We knew that Noynoy was for reviewing the VFA and a non-interference on family planning, and that Chiz was suddenly indignant -- out of the nether blue, it would appear -- about corruption and big business. We knew that Gibo was pro-VFA and that his stance on charter change still called for a presidential-unicameral set-up (“the Filipino people still want to elect their leaders”), while Loren continued to ride the wave of environmental concern (although, as of this writing, she has yet to decide on who she plans to run with, displaying a rather alarming absence of ideological gravitas).

The blogosphere’s primary impression of Manny V was that he had certainly milked the post-Ondoy effort for all it was worth, stamping his name on all the relief goods he had offered the typhoon victims. A decision, I might add, that struck most of us as being indescribably tacky, given the desperation of the historical moment. Erap -- well, what Erap stands for, apart from the need to vindicate himself (the hubris alone of running for that sole purpose continues to stagger me, unless he is actually an administration spoiler, strategically entering the fray when he did just to split up the opposition vote) -- is anybody’s guess. Apart from that, the public has not really heard from the candidates themselves. Clearly, we shall have to continue this discussion over the next few months.

----------

The love letter

But before I go any further, I feel I should discuss my letter to my uncle (please see my first blog) briefly, in view of the heated response and vigorous debate it has since engendered. To say that I’m slightly overwhelmed by it -- the firestorm that has since ensued, in short -- would be a colossal understatement. I had somehow thought, like Dostoevsky’s underground man, that I would never have any readers… As of this writing, there have been at least a thousand comments on different sites (mostly on Facebook, but on others as well) and 2000 views of this new blog, even as I continue to try to make sense of an increasingly unmanageable e-mail Inbox. Clearly, I owe it to my readers to try to at least address some of the concerns they have already raised. There are apparently issues that beg clarification.

But before I do so, I’d like to thank everyone for the generous and truly heartwarming comments they have been kind enough to share with me. These are the impalpable gifts that matter, in the end, and I will be certain to cherish them forever. Because I think most of my readers ultimately understood that the letter was not in fact an anti-FVR/pro-Noynoy letter: it was, truth be told, a love letter to the Filipino people. To see it as a partisan letter – to reduce it in the crudest possible way, in fact -- is to miss some of the more profound and subtle points I was trying to raise. But more on that later.

First, I should clarify why this and why now. Well, people have been trying to get me to write for over twenty years. But I had gone to a Chinese school in Manila, and had lived in the Philippines, Romania, Australia, Austria and India as a young woman -- so which universe was I going to write about, which frozen architecture to be given life? I had gone to school in the US and the UK, and had worked both in the Philippines (CCP and UP) and in the US (Oxford University Press, UNICEF, UNDP). I had restricted my writing to my academic work and my poetry, most of which has remained entirely private. Quite simply, a writer cannot write until the writing comes. At the end of the day, you can only write about what truly matters to you. And, ultimately, you can only write about what you have truly experienced, however raw and visceral that experience might be.

And then Ondoy happened, followed by Pepeng, and I literally didn't sleep for a month. I couldn't stop following what was happening in the Philippines, even as I continued to monitor events in other parts of the world. If I had ever had any doubts about where my heart lay, I don't anymore. I suppose, after years and years of watching and waiting, of hoping for change, I had become increasingly aghast at the unspeakable excesses of GMA. Saddened, too, that many of my nieces and nephews -- that entire generation, in fact -- no longer believed in the possibilities of revolution and social change. I suppose -- after seeing the Ondoy images, the absence of lifeboats, the endless horrors of mudslides and preventable flooding -- something in me just snapped. To have the Filipino people go through this again the next time around was simply too inconceivable for words.

So I did what I thought I had to do. I wrote my uncle, because I knew that the Liberal Party machinery, particularly in the provinces, was not particularly comprehensive. The Lakas Originals (those who had moved away from Lakas-CMD-Kampi) could hypothetically carry a strong machinery with them, as well as an unparalleled international component, in view of their relations with the Social Democrats in Europe and elsewhere. So to the many people who have said: “Sino ba si FVR? Wala na siya; hindi siya kailangan ni Noynoy, etc, etc,” I would argue that, as a matter of fact, the LP very much needs all the help it can get, particularly in terms of the kinds of logistics the Lakas Originals might be in a position to provide. From a purely strategic point of view, therefore, FVR was critical (although it now appears that this hope might not have been realistic after all).

I drafted the letter and sent it to my Mom and two brothers. They had ten days to go over it. Some changes were demanded, and eventually it was approved and sent to my cousin, FVR’s daughter. But once she had it, my immediate family had a change of heart, and asked that the letter not be delivered. The exchanges were, to put it mildly, rather heated. In a nutshell, everyone in my family was pissed at me, in one degree or another. Why are you haranguing us now, particularly when 80% of Pangasinan is under water? Don’t you understand that we’re dealing with matters of great consequence??

The inadvertent allusion to the Little Prince, of course, was not lost on me. It was a lonely and very painful time. But I thought long and hard about it for a week, and concluded that I owed it to the Philippines to at least try. I decided to ask my cousin to deliver the letter. Once FVR had it, my cousins and nephew (those in the family who cared about such issues, at least as far as I knew) got copies. I waited ten days and then put it in my blog.

Since the actual letter says that I would blog it, I feel that everyone was given fair warning. There was, in my view, time enough to let me know if in fact there had been deep misgivings about my decision to make it an open letter. The cold reality is that, as the youngest and as a mere “girl” in a family such as mine, there was the very real possibility that my letter would be ignored. And I couldn’t afford that, in view of the urgent points I felt I was trying to make. Since I encountered nothing more than a stony silence throughout those ten days, I felt I had the right to make it open. Regrettably, it now appears that the letter had not been read very carefully and the import of my intention not clearly understood.

I gather that I have incurred some hurt and surprise (my uncle was kind enough to respond), and for that I am deeply sorry. But I feel that my effort to be as inclusive and democratic as possible -- rather than ignoring everyone and simply writing my own thoughts down, the way most writers do -- had been in fact rather Promethean. It was apparently harder to reach a multilateral consensus in my family than it is to do so at the UN! So I take full responsibility for my own ideas, and would add that the only real intellectual influence in the family, as far as this letter was concerned, is my brother Chanda, whose striking intelligence doesn’t always receive the credit it is due, particularly in a family such as ours, where political figures often loom larger than life. My mother and brother Ranjit, in fact, are simply much too busy with their respective activities to discuss such issues with me at length.

The other intellectual influence is my jovial and rather brilliant band of friends on Facebook – Sylvia Mayuga, Jo de Veyra, Peter Casimiro, Mac McCarthy, Marcel Antonio, Marian Roces and Oscar Campomanes – who pretty much counseled against sending the letter, although some, like Sylvia, left the decision entirely up to me. All, that is, except for my friend Jo, whose sense of integrity has been inviolable throughout. His opinion -- that there was nothing that couldn’t be discussed openly, whether in families or in the public discourse itself -- finally convinced me that it was very much the right thing to do.

----------

Closing the circle: the implications of the response

So what was all the fuss about anyway? I say this not to sound disingenuous: yes, FVR is a former president, but so what? People blog their ideas and letters all the time, even if they happen to be relatives of famous people. What was it exactly about this little blog that appeared to captivate the public imagination? I gather many of my readers understood exactly how I felt. I would also suggest that it is precisely the lack of constructive criticism at home (at least in large measure), where substantive issues are not raised and where elders are most certainly not taken to task by younger generations -- that led to the intense collective response. Of the thousand or so comments I had to read over, the overwhelming majority where warm and supportive. Only about 10% disagreed, not all of whom were particularly civil. One was inordinately rude, although I have since gathered that his ideas are not his own as much as they are those of his financial backers. All appear to have been somewhat taken aback by a stance that was at once respectful and critical -- because the approach was so culturally new. 

The vast majority, thankfully enough, immediately recognized my love for FVR and the country of my provenance. The fact that my letter became a love letter to my country in the end, I suspect, was what had indeed struck such a deep chord. So I would suggest that we have actually come full circle here: that what Peter and I had been grumbling about over dinner might be precisely what the public is in fact now looking for. Perhaps, indeed, they are tired of media hacks casting aspersions at political personalities and are instead looking for a kind of constructive and critical debate in the public arena. It demonstrates all too well, I think, the importance of being earnest.

Perhaps what we need is precisely to go beyond personalities and their pragmatic (and often ideologically dubious) parties and coalitions. What we want is an open and substantive debate about the issues that concern us all. Not in legalese or off-putting economic jargon, mind, but in the type of language most Filipinos can absorb and appreciate. Instead of stooping to conquer, perhaps candidates might focus more on who they represent and what they are fighting for -- as opposed to the mere bottom-line. Because the stakes for our people have never been quite so high, and it is critical that we all understand what we are voting for.

What this also suggests is that we need to stop being so balat sibuyas and need to accord people with opposite points of view the space and respect they deserve. That we need to resist the parasitism that demands that candidates single-handedly solve all the problems in the country in one fell swoop. It is this very expectation of Obama in the US that may well be his undoing in the end. Indeed, all citizens are responsible for the realities around them, and everyone -- the candidates and the public -- would do well to think critically about their own positions, while responding with generosity to those of others. As Bertrand Russell would put it, "The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment." Even for non-Liberals, this has always struck me as a valuable methodology: being self-critical, at all times, and open to new information.

----------

On constructive criticism and the public discourse

I think by now it should be fairly clear that I didn’t in fact “trash” FVR: as his niece, I was simply asking my uncle to preserve his valuable legacy. No, he was not the only hero of EDSA 1, to be sure -- the people were, without a doubt, along with Cory, Johnny E, Cagayan 200 and others – but he was most certainly a critical catalyst. Even his most strident critics will have to grant him that. So: if I can attempt to think analytically and objectively about my own family and its endless kinship system, so can we all, in my opinion. Clearly, GMA and Erap deserve much harsher criticisms than those that I had leveled against him, but I am after all not their relative (the gods being fairly decent, in the end), and for now I don’t have my own column. In this case at least, I am restricted to writing directly to those whose lives I might inadvertently touch, simply by virtue of being in my family.

What I am recommending is not so much a “my country right or wrong/my candidate right or wrong” way of looking at things. On the contrary. What I am suggesting, instead, is that we practice a kind of critical nationalism (although this only in a constructive fashion), just as we need to remain vigilant about the candidates we support. While our moral failings no doubt merit deeper sociological investigation as well, our short-term policy decisions are still very critical.

Do I romanticize Noynoy and the LP? As a matter of fact, I don’t think I do. My friends on Facebook will confirm that I questioned his candidacy from the very start, on precisely the same grounds of birthright that Patricia Evangelista has raised ("The Aquino Son," Philippine Daily Inquirer). What had he achieved on his own merits, etc, etc? Of course I was well aware of the Hacienda Luisita/CARP maneuverings, the “Mendiola massacre”, the PCGG capers, the few questionable asset sales and other issues. Where, for instance, had the funds for the Mt. Pinatubo relief and rehabilitation gone? Tita Cory, too, had had her IPP issues and some questionable sales in relation to Clark and Subic, the continued national maintenance of which she bitterly defended. Not to mention human rights questions in relation to CAFGU, Alsa Masa, Tadtad and the rise of other violent armed groups. We will always love and respect Tita Cory, but these questions should most certainly be asked, for the sake of our country’s future.

But, again, Noynoy is not Cory, just as I am not Eddie Ramos, although we no doubt love our respective families deeply. It should therefore not be assumed that we necessarily agree with them hook, line and sinker. Noynoy cannot be held responsible for decisions his parents might have made, or things that happened when he was not in office. Indeed, even after having raised the issues above, I will still say that he is my candidate (unless I learn something new that might force me to change my opinion). Because, as a public figure, he has not himself been tainted by any hint of public corruption, at least as far as I know. As my mother’s daughter, this issue happens to be deeply important to me.

In the interests of keeping the discussion constructive, I would ask the following of my preferred candidate: if Benpres, say, is one of the corporate backers of his campaign, how might this influence, for instance, his future policies on Meralco fees? Where does he stand on the issue of debt relief in general (beyond the "fraudulent loans" that the Freedom from Debt Coalition was asking Cory’s government to study and investigate)? What of the Muslim real estate problem, which is not merely a tribal lands issue, after all? What exactly is his stance on land reform, and on Hacienda Luisita in particular? And, finally, what of the charges against the Macapagal-Arroyos, not only in terms of corruption, but also in terms of tax evasion, unexplained wealth and other family abuses?

I would suggest that all Filipino citizens ask equally probing questions of their own respective candidates. We owe it to ourselves -- and the future of the country -- not to let ourselves be bribed or duped by glib and facile promises.

So: by all means, let’s elevate the public discourse and address the issues. I’m not anti-FVR, nor am I an FVR apologist, just as I am not for Noynoy no matter what. I’m a critical thinker who recognizes the merits of some actions, even while I may question others. Context, in all things, is paramount, as is specificity. Based on what I have personally seen and read, Noynoy is my candidate. But I may well change my mind, depending on the information at my behest. People are free to throw their arguments my way, and I will certainly do my best to engage with them. If you'd like me to specifically address your concerns, I would ask that you leave your comments under the blog itself, rather than on other sites, so it's a little easier for me to collate. I would ask further that you remain civil and avoid getting personal, since that is precisely not the type of discursive level we are striving for. We can all agree to differ in a courteous manner, and I am open to having my opinion changed (although I should add that I came to it fairly carefully). Perhaps then, with or without the economic incentives, more ex-pats like Peter and myself might consider coming home. Critical engagement is not only an act of respect, after all, but also an unspoken act of love.

To the candidates, I would say simply: please share your respective visions with us. The people -- intelligent and hopeful, as always -- are listening.