“All Politics is Local” and Regional

“All Politics is local”, said former U.S. House Speaker Tip O’Neill.

Let me add “regional” the way it is currently played.

As a very interested observant and student of politics in the United

States and the Philippines I was lucky to have actively participated

in presidential and local elections in both countries.

In the United States, the presidential winner seems to be determined

by the results of certain “Swing or Battleground” States like Florida,

Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and a couple of others.

In the U.S. 2012 presidential elections, I correctly predicted the

results with the help of well known statistician Nate Silver’s formula. In

the Philippine presidential elections where my own Law classmate Rod

Duterte was a candidate, I also correctly predicted the victory of

both Duterte as President, and Leni Robredo as Vice President.

Noticeable in the 2016 Philippine presidential elections are the

sources of the votes. Mindanao gave Duterte landslide votes. His

closest opponent Roxas, not surprisingly, was the winner in most of the

major Visayan provinces.

The battle for the Vice Presidency between Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.

(Bongbong) and Leni Robredo is more interesting to note.  While Leni

Robredo won, the results were close. Bongbong obtained about 80% or

more of the votes in the Ilocos Region. The latter is known in local

politics as Solid North. In fact, the region produced several Ilocano

presidents since the Philippines became a Republic: Elpidio Quirino,

Ramon Magsaysay, Marcos, Sr., and Fidel Ramos. Although Carlos P.

Garcia is known to have hailed from Bohol, he is considered a

Full-Blooded Ilocano (FBI) because both of his parents are from Abra.

The Ilocano votes of Bongbong Marcos were matched by the Bicolano

votes plus more that Leni Robredo obtained from the Bicol provinces. She

also obtained about 80% or more of the votes in the area. VP

candidates Senators Escudero and Honasan also hail from the

region.There has never been a winning presidential or vice

presidential candidate from Bicol.

While all politics is local and therefore territorial, it is also

ideological in the United States. One must either be a conservative or a

progressive.

This is not so in the Philippines. Major parties are not distinguished

along ideological lines.

I am an Ilocano. That is why a friend was surprised when he found out

during Martial Law that I was an avid critic of Marcos. I explained to

him that being an Ilocano does not necessarily mean pro-any Ilocano

or pro-Marcos. I went on to explain how the battle was drawn using the

political spectrum analysis during Martial Law.

On the extreme left, I said, was Jose Ma. Sison, an Ilocano UP

professor who founded the Kabataang Makabayan (KM), led the Communist

Party of the Philippines and the New People’s Army.

The Christian Left was led by Ilocano rebel priest Fr. Conrad Balweg ,

a Catholic priest who began his revolutionary career defending the

ancestral land rights of the Tinggians, of Abra Province in the

Cordillera Mountains of Northern Luzon, against government-backed

mining operations. Abandoned by the Church and hunted by the

government, he went underground and joined the Communist Party of the

Philippines/New People's Army. He is the Philippines’ Fr. Camilo

Torres who espoused the Theology of Liberation and a comrade of Latin

America’s Che Guevara.

Left of Center were Raul S. Manglapus and Sonny Alvarez of the

Movement for a Free Philippines (MFP), President and Secretary

General, respectively. The former was an Ex-Senator and Foreign

Affairs Secretary who hailed from Tagudin, Ilocos Sur while the latter

was a Delegate to the Constitutional Convention who came from

Santiago, Isabela.

Of course, on the extreme right was dictator/fascist Ferdinand Marcos

and his Ilocano generals led by his Chief of Staff Ilocano Fabian Ver.

Based on this analysis, I have shown that not all Ilocanos were so bad

that they blindly and solidly supported a dictator who actually robbed

them blind – of their civil rights and their bright future. 

MARCOS: To Be or Not To Be @LNMB

My doctors say that I miraculously survived a stroke. After several

months in the hospital and rehab, I am currently at home to continue

the recuperating process. I intend to resume my Asian Journal column

and Google BlogSpot Blog.

Reading the latest news online, I noticed that the issue of whether

Marcos should be buried at the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani is again

headline news.

The Presidential Legal Counsel claims: “It does not distinguish

whether a president is good, bad, handsome or ugly. If you’re a

president, you’re entitled to be buried there.” He says that as a

soldier it is irrelevant whether he was a  “fake” hero with “fake”

medals.

Different opinions are encouraged but they will most likely be ignored.

Here is my legal opinion:

There are two relevant laws: Republic Act No. 289 and AFPR G 161 374.

The former is the statute that provides for the creation of a national

pantheon for Presidents of the Philippines, National Heroes and

Patriots of the country while the latter is the last of a series of

implementing rules relating to the construction, development and

maintenance of the pantheon.

The main reason for the national pantheon’s being is provided in

Section 1 of Republic Act No. 289: “to perpetuate the memory of all

the Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes and patriots for

the inspiration and emulation of this generation and of generation

still unborn.”

In short, to be buried in the hallowed ground are the remains of

Filipino heroes who would serve as “inspiration and emulation” of the generation when the law was enacted, today and most especially those of tomorrow who are yet to be born.

By the very letter of the law alone, given what transpired during his

dictatorial regime and the way he was eventually deposed, it would be

very hard to justify making Marcos as someone to emulate and as a

model to inspire any generation.

AFPR G 161 374 specifically provides who are qualified and who are

disqualified to be interred in the national pantheon. It requires that

they must have the qualifications and none of the disqualifications.

Paragraph 2 of AFPR G 161 374, entitled, Allocation of Cemetery Plots

at the Libingan ng mga Bayani enumerates who are qualified to be

interred in the cemetery. It says, “The remains of the following

deceased persons are qualified and therefore, authorized to be

interred in the Libingan ng mga Bayani:

a.      Medal of valor awardees:

b.      Presidents or commanders-in-chief AFP;

c.       Secretaries of national defense;

d.      Chiefs of staff, AFP;

e.       General flag officers of the AFP;

f.       Active and retired military personnel of the AFP;

g.      Veterans of Philippine Revolution 1896, WW1, WW2 and

recognized guerillas;

h       Government dignitaries, statesmen, national artists and other

deceased persons whose interment or re-interment has been approved by

the commander-in-chief, Congress or the Secretary of National Defense.

i.       Former presidents, secretaries of defense, CSAFP,

generals/flsg officers, dignitaries, statesmen, national artists,

widows of former presidents, secretaries of national defense and chief

of staff are authorized to be interred at the LNMB.”

The Presidential Legal Counsel could be relying on this provision

because clearly and understandably Marcos would qualify as among those

enumerated.

Unfortunately there is another paragraph in the said rules which also

clearly states those who are NOT qualified to be interred in the

Libingan ng mga Bayani. It says, “The remains of the following shall

NOT be interred in the Libingan ng mga Bayani:

a.      Personnel who were dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged from the service.

b.       Authorized personnel who were convicted by final judgment of

the offense involving moral turpitude.

Read with R.A. 289, mere inclusion in the list is not

sufficient. Anyone in the list must also serve as “inspiration and

emulation” for the current and future generation. So they must not

therefore bring dishonor in any shape or form. That is why the

provision on disqualification was also added.

Marcos cannot be disqualified on the basis of letter “b”. He was never

convicted by final judgment of any offense involving moral turpitude.

Although we can cite several offenses involving moral turpitude

allegedly committed by him, he died before he could be charged, tried

and convicted. There are legal effects or consequences of death. In

this material world, our finite courts cannot acquire criminal

jurisdiction over the soul of the dead. It would be too late for any

measure of personal and material reformation and / or retribution. The Divine courts take over for final judgment.

Letter “a” is another matter. Marcos was President, Dictator and

Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. He installed himself as such

virtually for life. There is only one way for him to be dishonorably

discharged, separated or deposed – by revolution of the people who as

the sovereign authority had temporarily vested its governmental powers

to him. The EDSA or People Power Revolution of 1986 “dishonorably

discharged” him not only for conduct unbecoming of an officer but most

significantly for killing democracy, for violation of human rights and

a list of other reasons too long to enumerate in this article.

A quick read of the affidavits submitted by human rights victims and

relatives of deceased victims for compensation depict cumulatively not only Crimes Against Humanity but include offenses involving moral turpitude.

MAHARLIKA

The Presidential Legal Counsel mentioned Marcos and his Maharlika outfit. It would be wise to take notice what the U.S. military records show: (See document)

Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre vs. Senator Miriam Santiago

Months before the actual 2016 Presidential elections, I wrote that if my Bedan classmate Rody Duterte  becomes president, he would appoint Vitaliano Aguirre as Secretary of Justice. The latter was  the Class Valedictorian of San Beda Law Class '71 that included two current Supreme Court Justices, two Court of  Appeals Justices and several Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judges.

During the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, one of the private prosecutors was Vit Aguirre. He caught the anger of Senator Santiago when he covered his ears refusing to listen to Santiago's tirade of insults and lectures.

I had the opportunity to discuss the legal battle taking the side of the new Justice Secretary. I am reposting the article for the benefit of those who missed reading it when it was published.

THE RIGHT TO COVER YOUR EARS

My barber called and discussed with me the event that resulted in the covering by private prosecutor Vitaliano Aguirre of his ears.

For several days during the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, every time Senator Miriam Santiago spoke, she had the habit of berating, lecturing, and insulting the Congressman-Prosecutors and private prosecutors on national television before the eyes and ears of millions of Filipinos. At one instance, she called them “GAGO (Fools) and “BOBO” (Idiots)).

Atty. Vitaliano Aguirre could no longer tolerate Santiago’s inappropriate conduct fully aware of the provisions of the Canon of Judicial Ethics which he knows the latter violated. 

My barber made the following observations:

1. Aguirre was covering his ears to avoid hearing more of Santiago’s insults.

2. Aguirre was not noticed by Santiago because the former was not in the latter’s line of sight.

3. Santiago continued her tirades and finished her annoying remarks without interruption and disturbance.

4. She found out about Aguirre’s action through Senator Jinggoy Estrada who has been observing Aguirre and through Senator Alan Cayatano who video-recorded Aguirre’s move.

5. Aguirre was cited for contempt because according to Senators Pia Cayetano and Miriam Santiago, under Senate Court Rules Aguirre showed disrespect by causing disturbance resulting in interruption to the proceedings.

6. Aguirre was supposedly disrespectful because he refused to listen to more verbal assaults to his dignity but did it without disturbance or interruptions.

7. “What about Estrada and Alan Cayetano?” my barber asked.

While observing people like Aguirre in the captive audience, Estrada was obviously not paying attention to Santiago’s annoying remarks.

While also observing the people in the captive audience, taking out his camera phone, focusing his camera on Aguirre, turning on the video or still camera, and later turning it off, Cayetano was obviously not paying attention to Santiago’s annoying remarks.

Weren’t Estrada and Cayetano disrespectful too? Did Cayetano get Aguirre’s permission to publish his picture or video?

Take it from my barber!

Then my barber again asked, “What about rights? There must be some rights involved here.”

I explained to him that when Aguirre covered his ears, he exercised individual autonomy within the context of Free Speech Rights. The latter consist of the right to speak, the right against compelled speech, the right to listen and the RIGHT AGAINST COMPELLED LISTENING.”

In an article by published by Boston Law Review, Caroline Mala Corbin said, “"Free Speech jurisprudence – which already recognizes the right to speak, the right to listen, and the right against compelled speech – is incomplete without the right against compelled listening. The same values that underlie the other free speech rights also lead to this right. Furthermore, this claim holds true regardless of whether one conceives of the primary purpose of the Free Speech Clause as creating a marketplace of ideas, enhancing participatory democracy, or promoting individual autonomy. “

As examined by Constitutional experts, “the protection afforded to unwilling listeners by the captive audience doctrine, balances private speakers’ right to communicate against listeners’ rights to privacy, equality and individual autonomy.” 

Indeed, the protection for captive listeners with the right against compelled listening is grounded in free speech values.

Individual autonomy means each individual in his own world has full autonomous control of his entire body, his brain, his sensual organs, other body parts. He decides what to see and what not see with his eyes. He decides when to pinch his nose if he does not want to smell an odor or figuratively, does not want the “smell” of somebody’s arguments. He can pay attention to other things if a speaker bores him. He can even “cover his ears” if he finds the speaker annoying or insulting.

Indeed, by covering his ears, Aguirre exercised individual autonomy within the context of Free Speech Rights which, in this case, is the Right Against Compelled Listening. He actually had several choices. First, to stand up and object. This would have rudely interrupted Santiago. Besides, he was prohibited from doing it. Second, to stand up and ask permission to leave. This would have rudely interrupted Santiago and definitely be perceived as being discourteous. Third, cover his ears. This would neither cause any disturbance nor interruption. He was also defending his dignity, respect and self-esteem by not being forced to listen to more abusive language.

For being cited for contempt, Aguirre faced a possible fine plus up to ten days in jail. Does he deserve it? What about Santiago’s bad behavior? 

Punishing Aguirre would be adding INJURY to a series of INSULTS.

Eight out of ten in the social media favor Aguirre over Santiago. Senator Trillanes in a text message wrote, “A slap on the wrist would suffice.” He would have also stood up and defended himself if he was on the receiving end of Santiago’s scathing remarks.

Former Ambassador and National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Chairman Roy Seneres , Aguirre’s former classmate at San Beda law school delivered a good point. Aguirre was cited for contempt by the Senate but Santiago was never chided for calling the prosecutors “fools”. 

“He and Santiago are in pari delicto (equally at fault). Both committed contemptuous behavior. Aguirre should not be punished unless Santiago is punished also. If the Senate can’t punish Santiago, they should not punish Aguirre either. The entire Senate would be committing a contemptuous act if they punish Aguirre only,” Seneres texted.

The Senate, after its caucus, in a display of good political wisdom and judgment, decided NOT to punish Aguirre.

My barber is a little more hopeful about the Senate and the Philippines!!!

DUTERTE’S DESTINY

President-Elect Rody Duterte

Mar Roxas was what we call “llamado”. He had all the advantages in the Philippine presidential race.

First, he had greater name recognition – son of the late LP President

and Senator Gerry Roxas, and grandson of the Philippines’ First

Philippine Republic Manuel Roxas;

Second, he was endorsed and supported by the incumbent President

Benigno Aquino III. and the Yellow Army;

Third, he was the standard bearer of the ruling party – the Liberal

Party, which has the political machine and resources controlling

Congress, Provincial, City, and Municipal capitols and the entire

Bureaucracy;

Fourth, he was independently wealthy and supported by clean and business money;

Fifth, he was the incumbent Secretary of Interior and Local

Governments, which gave him access and control over almost every local

political official;

Sixth, he was comparatively the most experienced among the

presidential candidates; and

Seventh, he owned a powerful message, “Daang Matuwid”, which proved to be PNoy’s successful anti-corruption legacy.

Yet, he lost to my Bedan classmate Mayor Rody Duterte in the

presidential competition. Duterte trounced him convincingly with

Duterte garnering 15,956,395 votes and Roxas obtaining 9,696,228 per

reports as I write this column.

Why? Let me contribute the following views:

1.     Historically, Filipino voters always preferred the perceived

most “macho” or “superhero” as President. Based on his record as a

strong Mayor of Davao City, Duterte was reputed to be the most

“macho”.

2.     While endorsed by PNoy, the Liberal Party, and the Yellow Army

to continue PNoy’s policies, the Filipino people have not felt the

benefits of the economic and “Daang Matuwid” policies. Continuity does

not register to mean socio-economic and political changes to their

lives in the immediate future.

3.     Duterte’s message resonated more and was credibly better received

by the Filipino voters. Promising to go after the criminals and hoping

to suppress drug trafficking drove the voters to the polls for

Duterte. This is reinforced by the promise to accomplish the

objectives in the shortest time possible – six months to one year.

4.     The prospects for eventual peace in Mindanao seems to be

closest to the hearts and minds of the Muslims and other Mindanao

residents with Duterte voted as President.

5.     Even the leftist and other rebels are open to sitting down with

Duterte peacefully and together looking for long-term solutions to the conflicts.

6.     Initially disappointed for his decision not to run for

President, I wrote that his withdrawal meant that the Filipino people

were denied an alternative vision for the country’s future as

reflected by Rody’s unwavering commitment to institute radical changes

in our society. A great number of Filipinos like and love what he did

in Davao City and even more wanted him to lead the nation. Hence, the

clamor for him to run for President.

Well, he heard the clamor and the sound was getting louder and louder! His supporters grew in great numbers, and Philippine history is changed forever!

I join others in praying that God blesses President-elect Duterte with

greater health, discernment, courage and wisdom as he provides the

Filipino people a clear vision.