CAPITALISM, DEMOCRACY, AND THE RISE OF TRUMP

Because neo-liberalism failed the people, because the promises of capitalism benefited only the likes of Donald Trump and made the poor even poorer...

The US presidential election was decided less by specific gender, ethnicity, race, and migration issues (or identity politics) than issues that matter to class. The rejection of Hillary Clinton (but not necessarily the victory of Trump) is a strong indictment of corporate capitalism personified by Wall Street. Wall Street is seen to be the Democrats' principal veering away from its historical role as the defender of the oppressed.

Similarly, in the Philippines...

We should be looking at the trigger of mass anger and address it instead of self-righteously shouting from lofty bourgeois windows about how we are now held hostage by the choices the idiots and uneducated made that now affect us. Education may come from books and universities but theirs came from experience. Electoral choices may be dictated by desire for comforts and privileges derived from a system that deprives the masses of the ability to survive decently. Theirs are dictated by the deprivation they suffer from a system that showers comfort on the few while sweeping them aside like dead leaves to the periphery.

(Un)fortunately, "We are the many; (you )are the few," goes a song inspired by the Occupy Movement.

If democracy is the rule of the majority, then we have to respect their choices. We keep saying that democracy is the best form of government. Well, in the US, democracy decided that Trump should be President. Those who insist that democracy is the only form of government acceptable in a civilized world must honor the choice of the majority.

But maybe, we need to give democracy a second look.

It seems when capitalism logically advances to its worst anti-poor shape, it negates democracy. Government ceases to be for the people, of the people, by the people. It is for the few, of the few, by the few. The masses can no longer exercise freedom of choice and do not enjoy freedom from want.

So, auspiciously, a dictator must rise to undo the imbalance but not in the fashion of Marcos who became a tyrant to enrich himself and his cronies. This dictator will reverse the wheel to the end that government must make the greater good for the greater number its goal.

Our own Jose Laurel said that the best form of government is an authoritarian regime with an angel on the throne. That angel is biased for the poor and the weak.

Now I am looking for that angel. S/he might be able to show to us that a dictatorship for the poor and marginalized is the true democracy. Why? Access to goods and services gets opened and sustained for the majority who make up the traditionally ignored or forgotten poor.

WHO MADE MARCOS A HERO?

Now, they blame the 16M who voted for Duterte. They say to us: Putang ina ninyo!

Who made Marcos a hero?

You did, by worshipping at the altar of his anti-poor, pro-oligarch economic policies perpetuated by Corazon Aquino, Fidel Ramos, Joseph Estrada, Gloria Arroyo, and Noynoy Aquino. You did not protest when Ramos was privatizing public utilities even if you knew this would make life harsher for the poor. You did not protest when Congress authorized foreign plunder of our natural resources. You did not protest when Ramos allowed the oil industry to operate without a leash around its neck controlled by the State.

You did, by keeping quiet when the winter of human rights during Martial Law returned during Arroyo's Reign of Terror. You were apathetic to the thud of falling bodies of more than a thousand activists. You did not even say a word when lawyers and judges were getting killed. You did not say a whimper of protest when people were disappearing just for telling the truth.

You did, by keeping quiet about EJKs during Aquino's time. Indigenous leaders were being killed, disappeared, or tortured for defending their ancestral lands. Environmental defenders were suffering the same fate. Their domains were being militarized and they were being brutalized. You did not mind it when Arroyo and Aquino allowed mining corporations to use the government-paid military to become mining corporations' private security forces to harass indigenous communities. You would not even post a status on Facebook to express solidarity. You posted pictures of your food and travels. You could afford those. Some of you made money to help the corporations abuse indigenous communities and the environment some more. You made money to help companies abuse the rights of workers.

You did, by not speaking out against cronyism after Martial Law. You did not question Kamag-anak, Incorporated, and Kabaralin, Kaklase, at Kaibigan.

You did, by not speaking out against Palparan and his ilk. You did not speak out against the very conditions which made Martial Law a dark period when they resurfaced after the Marcos tyranny.

You did, by condemning the national democratic activists who would take to the streets on a regular basis to expose and reject what is Marcosian in society. You called them public nuisance. You called Renato Jr. Reyes a pest more than once.

You helped make Marcos a hero. Shame on you for doing a Pontius Pilate.

And yes, you made Duterte President. Your endorsement of Marcosian practices made Duterte stand out as the only hope for the poor.

Remove that mote in your eye before you remove the mote in other people's eyes.

This is the time to examine national conscience, not to wash the guilt off your hands.

QUIZ ON THE U.S. ELECTIONS

This is a 'multiple choice' quiz.

1. In the near future, what brand of drones or bombs will be dropped by the US on some Third World Country? 

2. What brand of rubber-stamps will the military industrial complex be using in the White House to destroy world peace?

3. What breed of attack dogs will the US government unleash to try to silence the indigenous Americans from opposing corporate expansion on their sacred grounds?

For each question, there are only two very possible answers to choose from: a) Republican; and b) Democrat.

IF THERE'S A WILL, THERE'S A WAY: DID PNOY AQUINO PLAN THE 10,000 BED CAPACITY DRUG REHAB CENTER IN NUEVA ECIJA?

In November 2016, which is less than a month away, the government's drug rehab center in Nueva Ecija which can accommodate 10,000 patients will be operational.

The Duterte administration is less than four (4) months old. So, some find it incredible that this project is its brainchild alone. Its paternity or maternity must be shared with another administration because the project--from planning to construction - could not be completed in less than four months. The obvious picture they want painted is that the project was planned by the previous administration and implemented by the fledgling Duterte dispensation. This was pointed out by one netizen who said he is very familiar with construction and who currently audits much bigger construction projects in another country.

If it is important to attribute credit, then we give it where it is due. And it belongs to the Duterte government. All along, while we were getting a regular dose of the President's verbal diarrhea against drugs, his government was quietly constructing the facility.

How did it happen in less than four months, the incredulous ask? It cannot be. The project must have been planned by the previous administration, they say.

I watched Duterte's interview with Al Jazeera where he said some things that made me squirm regarding the drug issue but also revealed how determined he is to create a generation of Filipinos unafflicted by drug addiction. In the same interview, he stressed that the 2016 budget prepared by the Aquino dispensation does not include funds for a drug rehabilitation facility. This is easy to explain. The Aquino government did not see a drug menace lurking in Philippine society. It knew that the country had, as of 2014, some 3M drug addicts as reported to it by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. But it did not consider the problem serious, otherwise why the apathy? In fact, more than apathy to the evils from the menace, it even created a favorable political climate to make the National Penitentiary the principal office of the drug trade in the country. This was through Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, Aquino's alter ego, who gave hardened criminals privileges just so they could become big-time drug lords to raise money for her.

Without government money for a drug rehabilitation center, Pres. Duterte harnessed the generosity of one Chinese philanthropist who was very willing to provide the much-needed money: Huang Rulun. Mr Huang, before he made it big, did business in the Philippines and made some fortune here. He was just so happy for the opportunity to pay back. (And this got me thinking: Why can't the likes of Henry Sy do something as altruistic as this? Or are they more interested in putting mom-and-pop entrepreneurs out of business?)

So things are clear: The Duterte government made that facility happen.

How? I do not know. I only realize now more than ever that political will is the mother of inguenity. Things can happen and happen fast, if the will is there. It is a cause for celebration, not questions. Addicts should be rehabilitated, not killed for no reason other than they are addicts. Now, we know the government has a solution to the drug menace other than the crackdown on pushers claiming innocent lives as vigilantes take advantage of it. Although not often reported, Duterte called on his Cabinet to come up with a plan to help "drug users and pushers who have surrendered to rehabilitate themselves and return to the fold of society as productive members.” As announced by Sec. Judy Taguiwalo, head of DSWD which is one of the lead agencies in the rehabilitation, transformation, and reintegration into society of drug addicts, such plan was already crafted in the form of the National Drug Rehabilitation Program (NDRP).

But maybe, indeed, the completion of the drug rehab center should invite question: How was it done that quickly? I want to know because it can give us lessons on responsive government. We have been so used to a slow or apathetic bureaucracy that a speedy action from it renders us skeptical.

ON THE UNPRESIDENTIAL WHISTLING OF A VERY PRESIDENTIAL DUTERTE

When I watched the video of PaDi Mayor Digong Duterte's press con where he whistled apparently at Ms Mariz Umali, I felt not only uncomfortable. I was incensed. I thought Ms Umali was a random media person PaDi did not know but whistled at. But I did notice that she seemed to  enjoy a banter with PaDi and did not at all appear repulsed. I googled about her and that incident.. I discovered she issued a statement  that said in so many words that she did not take offense. She merely found his catcalling "maybe improper." I thought, "This woman is internally oppressed. How could she dismiss catcalling by someone to whom she is a stranger inoffensive? Or is it because her offender is the incoming President?"

Whether Ms. Umali was offended or not, I felt that what PaDi did was very improper. I became Mariz Umali. I felt the victimization  she could not feel. I posted a call-out on Facebook.

Next, I read my newsfeed.

There was hatred, even bloodlust, for Duterte. I could gather this from the irrationality of people's strong statements. There were voices of people stuck on May 9 unable to move on from the defeat of Roxas. You could tell from the fact that they suddenly became advocates for women's rights. I did not hear them say anything about women's rights in the past. In fact, they never reacted to that tasteless virtual sex act onstage during a birthday party of a Liberal Party stalwart. This also angered me. The Yellow Kingdom was, to them, all sunshine and, despite situations needing voices, they kept quiet. I thought, "These people, noisy as they are now, are not really speaking for women; they are using a women's issue only to advance political vendetta or promote hatred of PaDi."

And then there were people drumbeating for vigilance; they never called for vigilance before. I thought, "They were simply apathetic - or apolitical might be the politically correct word. Now, they have become politically involved." This to me is a very positive development - that the foul mouth of a President unprecedented in our history is jolting people and getting them out of political apathy. Even PaDi Mayor must be happy.

Thankfully, I could find sincere rebuke as well.

The amusing thing is that when I said on FB that PaDi should not whistle at a woman in public even if she seems not to take offense, some reacted in a way I understood to mean they thought they discovered women's rights before I did or they cared more for women than I did. I sort of ...uhmmm... got annoyed. I became historical. "Hoy, you think only your hearts bleed for women? For decades, I have been fighting for women's rights and even devote free legal services to them. Blah, blah." Then it dawned on me that they did not expect the call-out from the Dutertard that I am. Well, not every political supporter is like many supporters of the Yellow Army who condemn injustice only when it is not attributable to yellow hands. The Dutertards I know do not pay blind obeisance.

Much later on, I saw this video of Ms Umali and PaDi interacting in a private atmosphere. He was humble, friendly, and patient despite the shallowness of her questions. In fact, I felt that she was assaulting his privacy and he was not really relishing  the intrusion. But who am I to arrogate unto myself the license to squirm in discomfort on behalf of the country's incoming President?

They were on their way to dinner - the supposed future sexual harassment victim and the supposed future sexual harassment offender.

After watching the entire video, I began to see the catcalling in a different light. I got convinced that when Ms Umali said she was not offended, she was not offended. She and PaDi Mayor had a "history" before that controversial press con and that was the reason why she   took  his whistling with a grain of salt.

And so two hours ago, I said on someone's wall that in sexual harassment cases, while the nature of the act is important, so is context. Catcalling may be an act by which sexual harassment is committed, but in what context is it done? Also, sexual harassment is a subjective offense. It is not the offender's intent but the victim's feeling that is relevant. Ms Umali was not offended. Please let us not insist she was. Your feelings do not define the crime, OK? Neither does your political frustration or hatred, OK? Let us not reduce  Ms Umali into an object and take her place as the subject.

I still think Duterte should not whistle as he did. It is unpresidential. It is. Unpresidential. I do not look forward to it.

But I look forward to the presidential things he promised to do, a few of which are:

1. Bring the Lumad home;

2. Create a committee to investigate killings of journalists;

3. End PDAF and DAP;

4. Enforce simplicity among government officials;

5. Review K to 12;

6. Cleanse NLRC;

7. End contractualization;
8. Legalize medical marijuana;
9. End the drug trade;

10. Resume peace talks;

11. Appoint pro-people officials to deliver social services; and

12. Make justice accessible.

I am happy the unpresidential President has less than a month to vacate the palace and the more presidential one will take over.

PADI FOR PANGULONG DIGONG DUTERTE, NOT PDUT OR PDIG

What is in a moniker or monicker? A lot. Remember how Sen. Gordon's supporters would say, "Ipasok si Dick sa Senado! (Let Dick penetrate the Senate!)" Mar Roxas as Mr. Palengke became very popular that he topped the senatorial race not a long time ago.

Recent history tells us that a presidential moniker helps build the image of the President to the public. It can make or unmake this image.

Tita Cory made Pres. Corazon Aquino appear warm, motherly, and reliable. To her detractors, Tita Cory symbolized a person who could do humanity a favor just by being everyone's favorite aunt but, puleez, get out of Malacanang already and let someone with the mettle run the government.

Erap made Pres. Joseph Estrada appear accessible or approachable as though he was everyone's buddy. To his detractors, Erap was just the perfect nickname for a gangster, a lackadaisical (non)leader who would stay awake until the wee hours drinking booze and playing poker in Malacanang. It was Fernando Poe, Sen. Grace's father, who gave him the nickname.

PNoy made Pres. Benigno Aquino appear like he was every Filipino who understood every Filipino. Because he was PNoy, people forgave him for the Luneta hostage-taking fiasco. They forgave him for the ineptitude of his dispensation during the Yolanda tragedy and flagellated Mar Roxas instead. When he strayed from Daang Matuwid by protecting his buddies committing shenanigans and by being callous to the abject conditions of the poor "every Filipino," PNoy began to stand for someone with the compassion of an egg or whose IQ is measured as an egg. When we get zero in exams, we normally say, "Itlog ang nakuha ko (I got an egg)." Penoy is duck egg.

Now, the political discourse includes the question of what monicker Incoming President Rodrigo Duterte should use. There are several suggestions, two of which are PDut (for President Duterte) and PDig (for President Digong).

If you understand Iloko, PDut does not sound good. A kleptomaniac is called "agpidut." My friend Bayan Muna Congressman Karlos Ysagani Kaloi Zarate does not like it either. He did not tell me his reason. He does not like PDig. He also did not tell me why. Maybe, it is because PDig is close to Pig.

This early, Kaloi is calling the incoming President PaDi for Pangulong Digong. He is quick to point out that PaDi means Tatay, the Filipino word for 'dad.'

PaDi does sound good, perfect in fact.

PaDi will soften the reputation of Mr Duterte as Mr Tough Guy. As I keep saying, people who know him really up close and personal like Kaloi swear by his soft and compassionate heart. When Kaloi asked me how PaDi sounds, I told him that in the Cordilleras, we use Apo Padi (Reverend Father) to address people of the cloth with reverence. There is a play called Padi Igorot about an Episcopalian priest named Clifford Nobes who lived among Igorots in the mid-20th century. Rev. Father Nobes was known as a dedicated and respectful missionary among the Igorots. Apo Padi is a man of compassion and service. And Padi Rex is not just a priest. He is a people's priest who lived and, despite health issues, continues to live a religious life dedicated to uplifting the condition of the oppressed. Like Apo Padi, every good father will do everything to protect his children from harm.

Like the proverbial/traditional father, though, PaDi captures Mr Duterte's strict side. No smoking except in the few designated areas. Be home early, young man. If you drink, don't drive. No jaywalking. No littering. No peeing against the wall. No petting and necking in the corridors. :-)

Cong. Karlos Ysagani Zarate just coined the perfect monicker for the incoming President!

Here is looking forward to 6 years of PaDi's presidency. I am hoping it will be a sheltering presidency as it will be an empowering one.

A LETTER ON DUTERTE FROM A FRIEND IN AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL AND MY RESPONSE

Now, I can reveal this.

Last 24 March 2016, a month after I wrote my Why Rody Duterte article which would eventually become viral, I received an email from a friend expressing his disconcert over my support for Rody Digong Duterte.

My friend is an Amnesty International leader based in the USA who, along with some others I count as friends, has been working indefatigably on human rights issues in the Philippines for decades dating as far back as the Martial Law Years. These people put up the Ecumenical Advocacy Network on the Philippines (EANP). Among the members are Prof. Tim McGloin and his wife, Linda, Prof. Paul Bloom of Amnesty International and his wife Meg Layese who is also President of the Philippine Study Group of Minnesota, Gary King who is Group 37 Leader of Amnesty International, Brian Campbell, and John Sifton of Human Rights Watch. I know how sincere and dedicated EANP is in watching actions of the US government that have an impact on human rights in the Philippines.

In 2013, I joined them in lobbying the US Congress to reduce if not eliminate its aid to the Armed Forces of the Philippines because of human rights violations the AFP committed -by itself or through paramilitaries- especially against indigenous and environmental activists. They asked me to articulate indigenous issues to offices of Representatives and Senators of the US Congress which I did. The efforts of EANP paid off. This was the same group that asked the Lantos Commission to look into the human rights record of the Arroyo administration with the same call to review the military aid. Hearings were conducted by the Commission. Since 2012, the group has been lobbying that the Commission would convene again to look into the human rights record of the Philippines and to give a critical look into its military aids to the government. They also sent Pres. Aquino a signed petition published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer to stop the X-strata Mining in Tampakan. On my request, they sent a letter to the Korean government to stop the Korean Exim Bank from lending P9B for the Jalaur Megadam Project which would displace the indigenous Jalaudnon-Bukidnon. Because of this and efforts of the mass movement of which Jey Aye Alenciaga, John Warner Carag, and Malaya Pinas are part, a fact-finding mission was launched to look into the concerns of the affected indigenous community. They also worked to stop the possibility of Pres. Aquino being given the Nobel.

I am so proud to have been working with EANP and hope to continue doing so in the future.

Anyway, my friend must have been very disappointed in me when he learned I was supporting the Mayor of Davao City. This was his email:

Chyt, I thank you for the plan about a counter-petition to prevent ‘injustice’ in the case of Palparan. He clearly has been a monster, and has motivated many persons in the military, paramilitary and government to torture, murder, (and) (d)isappear people.

I have sent it to my usual 250 friends who do Amnesty International work on the Philippines. Numerous ones have told me they signed the petition you sent.

I have heard you support Duterte. We know about 800 persons murdered by the Davao Death Squads. And he made horrid statements in the past endorsing and promoting it. Conceivably, this rate of murder is comparable to the sins of Palparan himself. And then they started in Cebu City, another 200 murdered.

Has Duterte said anything of repentance, and a desire to deliver law and order without EJE? If there is no change of his heart, I fear he will allow paramilitary groups to thrive, and death squads will proliferate.

Why can we expect these things to diminish under Duterte?

Warm Regards,

xxx”

As soon as I read the mail, I replied:

Hi, Xxxx,

How are you?

We really do find ourselves in a difficult position. I do support Duterte and I am not the only one from the left... I must be breaking your hearts but do hear me out.

We are aware of Duterte's HR record. We will always condemn him for that and will continue trying to make him account. But we are also aware- and have personal knowledge-- that he has a track record of supporting sectors we represent. I do know that he has been supporting the Lumads and has always been one with them in rejecting corporate plunder of indigenous resources. There are almost a thousand evacuees in the UCCP Haran Compound right now. They were internally displaced by the AFP and paramilitaries acting for extractive corporations, some of which are supporting Roxas. Duterte and his family are very protective of the Lumads. Sr. Stella Matutina, the Redemptorist nun given a German recognition for her HR work last year, told me that Duterte's family are giving logistical support to the evacuees and have been rallying local business to contribute to their daily needs. This was confirmed by Cong. Karlos Ysagani Zarate of Bayan Muna and other Mindanao fellow HR workers. What is more, he has consistently opposed US military presence in Mindanao and rejected drone testing. And only he has a clear stand on the coco levy funds--give them to the farmers.

The other candidates do not have the same positions; neither a heart for IPs and basic sectors whose issues we passionately stand for and feel strongly about. Roxas is too oligarchic and too pro-mining. Binay is too corrupt which Duterte is not known to be. Poe is supported by Danding Cojuangco. She already announced she would make Col Ariel Querubin, a San Miguel officer, a cabinet official. She said she would open the Philippine economy to foreign ownership. She promised to appoint PNoy as anti-corruption czar. Claims that she is PNoy's other anointed is not hard for me to believe.

Duterte did kill hundreds. This is not right. But at least- and this is not to defend him-- he did not kill activists from the left unlike Palparan. His death squads do not touch the progressive groups. He seems to limit his bloodlust to his perceived criminals. We fear Duterte's death squad but what about PNoy's and the mining sector's paramilitaries? I believe Roxas will not deviate from PNoy's policy on paramilitaries. Shall I support Binay just because he has no paramilitaries? Shall I support Poe for the same reasons?

Moreover, since the 1990s, Duterte has been working with labor organizations (though I do note what he said about KMU). He is actually credited for many Davao initiatives on women, LGBT, children, and other vulnerable sectors. And it is a fact that he donated an inherited property to the government for the construction of a children's hospice. I know people who attest to his simplicity. Yes, he is a man of contradictions: a man with an iron fist but he is also a man with a soft heart.

For me, personally, choosing to support Duterte was not an easy one to make. I cannot vote for the three others. I have hopes that Duterte will make life less harsh for the Lumads and ease the country from corporate stranglehold. I could be wrong. But I have hopes that this man, despite his flawed character, is not as bad a choice as the others.

“I hope you understand my decision.

Find here my statement issued last February explaining why I decided to go for Duterte. I entertained the idea beginning 2013 when it looked like only he was speaking for the Lumads, and while my mind was then made up, I was ready to be flexible should a better or less bad candidate run. The alternatives then were Roxas and Binay. None of the above. Poe? No , because I have not heard her say anything about IPs. In my statement below, I spared Poe from diatribes out of respect for others in the progressive left who support her.

Best regards,

Chyt

Well, Duterte won by a landslide. I still have to hear from my friend. I know he will never stop fighting to protect human rights in the Philippines and other parts of the world. I know EANP will never rest.

Here I am, very elated that my candidate won. Those days of speaking in caucuses and rallies and other meetings to promote Duterte’s candidacy have contributed even if little to Duterte’s victory. For that, I, as the millions of others who fought for his candidacy despite all odds, claim the right to be part of his conscience, to speak out when he deviates from respect for human rights, and to stand by him when he eases the burden of the impoverished, toiling masses.

I have high hopes in the incoming presidency. I, however, do not believe that elections will fundamentally change things. The mass movement, the different sectors, and the new President must work together to dismantle the oppressive structures.

I hope my friend will eventually tell me, “Chyt, you made the right choice.”

WHY RODY DUTERTE?

...This man, despite his dirty mouth, draws voters and indigenous activists like me. Along with his new "loveteam partner" Miriam Santiago, he is the first among the presidential candidates to notice and denounce the latest atrocity committed against the Lumad: the burning of their evacuation center. He has always championed the rights of the Lumad and has always matched rhetoric with action.

He is a self-confessed killer of people he self-righteously and arbitrarily judged as rapists, murderers, kidnappers, or drug lords, but he has not killed a single activist in the struggle to dismantle structural/national oppression or a single indigenous person protecting ancestral domains. In fact, he has been providing shelter to internally displaced IPs. The other candidates consider IPs invisible - we haven't heard them say anything about the issue even if it is burning right before their very eyes. Two candidates are said to be using the private planes of people connected to abusive mining in IP territory. Any candidate who supports corporate mining on indigenous land is automatically off my list.

So do not judge me, a human rights lawyer and activist before anything else, for gravitating towards this foul-mouthed, dirty old man named Rody Duterte even if my husband, Leandro B. Yañgot, is committed to campaigning for Mar Roxas. With the exception of Grace Poe and Santiago, your candidates have meaner, harsher, and dirtier human rights records. Human rights violations are not just about killing without due process. They are also about neglecting to do your job well or looking at your job as a way to upgrade your burning presidential ambition, resulting in the death of thousands of people in a storm. They are about keeping quiet as a Cabinet official, even if you could have spoken out while DSWD was hoarding and later burying food worth millions of pesos meant for disaster victims. They are about stealing from government coffers millions or billions of pesos that could have gone to alleviating the economic tribulation of the poor. Poverty, hunger, and lack of security in times of disaster are human rights violations, too, as serious as death. At least, death ends suffering but how about those who remain alive? 

Friends, if your main criterion in choosing a candidate is his/her position on who should or should not get buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani, that to me is not enough. Besides, the other candidates may be anti-Marcos and spewing anti-Marcos rhetroic but where were they and their families during the anti-Marcos days? When they got to the helm of power, what did they do to reverse the after-effects of the Marcos presidency? One pandered quite solicitously to foreign interests, and indefatigably worked for the same Marcosian solutions to economic ills - the solutions friendly to hacienderos, abusive domestic and foreign corporations, the elite. One claims to be indigenous but what has he done for indigenous peoples? He ruled a city that benefits immensely from the oppression by corporations of indigenous communities. The big corporations wantonly plunder ancestral domains and pay taxes as residents of his city. His city gets a large share from the Internal Revenue Allotment. His city is rich because of indigenous sacrifices and unabated suffering, among others. The resource-rich LGUs where the IPs are remain to be this country's poorest and they deal with the environmental degradation wrought by corporate pillage. Very Marcosian situation. You are anti-Marcos? How can you support these candidates who continue the same anti-people policies of Marcos?

I am indigenous and I look at the world with indigenous eyes. I am engaged in development work and work with communities. I hold office in my shoes and where they take me, and not in some posh four-cornered room. I look at the world from that vantage. For that matter, I look at the elections with the same eyes. I will vote for a candidate who has been kind to the most oppressed people in this country, who are fighting to protect the country's last living lung (even if he is condescending at times. I have not forgotten that he said, "Let an Ifugao or Badjao run, but please... not an American." I wish I could force him to gargle with the strongest laundry soap.).

And he is not "epal". In fact, he seems to be destroying his own campaign. He exaggerates his flaws and does not talk about the Samaritan acts he did for people in distress. But actions speak louder than words.

So, please stop asking why I, a human rights lawyer, am supporting Duterte who supports a Marcos burial in Libingan  ng mga Bayani and I will stop asking why you are supporting one I perceive to be anti-people. :-) With the exception of Grace Poe and Miriam Santiago, the candidates are all killers, all human rights violators, all evil.

I chose the least evil.

VICE-PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM SUIT: A MYTH MOTHERED BY JUSTICE SECRETARY DE LIMA

by: CHERYL L. DAYTEC

Justice Secretary Leila de Lima reportedly issued a statement that the Vice President of the Republic of the Philippines enjoys immunity from suit during his incumbency  as the President does. She declared that the immunity applies to all impeachable officials.

The 'short' of my 'long' comment: De Lima is wrong that the Vice President  is immune from suit. If the President is not immune from suit, why should he be? Assuming the President is immune, the traditional reason for it -that he may be unimpeded in the exercise of presidential powers-- does not apply to the Vice President who has not one power under the Constitution.

Why should  the  Vice President be immune from suit when, in fact, the 1987 Constitution does not even state that the President who is higher than him, is?There has to be a reason why presidential immunity textually expressed in the 1973 Constitution was dropped from the 1987 Constitution which however retained the provision on non-suability of the State enshrined in the previous Constitution. Presidential immunity  was a legal creation of Pres. Ferdinand Marcos. When his regime repudiated the 1935 Constitution in place of a new Constitution, he ensured that there would be a provision granting himself immunity from suit. Thus, Art. VII, Section 7 of the 1973 Constitution provided:  "The President shall be immune from suit during his tenure. Thereafter, no suit or whatsoever shall lie for official acts done by him or by others pursuant to his specific orders during his tenure."

Presidential immunity  positioned Marcos above the law.In a functioning democracy, no one is above the law. No one is above the law, not even the President, especially not the President who, under a presidential system like that of the Philippine Government, must ensure the faithful implementation of the laws.

The Marcos regime, to this very day, is internationally known for having been a government of men and women and not of laws. Rule of law was repudiated in the name of an oppressive dictatorship. There is no need to be apocryphal about the consequences of presidential immunity from suit.

In 1986, Marcos was ousted during the so-called People Power Revolution. Having learned its lessons, the Filipino people newly emergent from the cocoon of tyranny, sought to dismantle legal structures that desecrated the rule of law and put a few self-proclaimed leviathans above it. One way of realizing this was by hurling presidential immunity  into the dustbins of history.

Thus, in the 1987 Constitution, there is already a very conspicuous absence of any provision to the effect that the President is immune from suit. It was the intent of the Filipino people, regardless of the intent of the constitutional drafters, to make the President of the Philippines accountable before the law. Accountability is a constitutional watchword under Section 1 of Article XI and is inherent in a functioning democracy. After all, the President is the chief implementor of laws. This becomes meaningless when, while he hoists the trident to enforce laws, he may not be made accountable while he sits when he violates them.

It is worth noting that the few decisions of the Philippine Supreme Court recognizing presidential immunity  under the 1987 Constitution  are friable. Its very tenacity  was discussed  in the case of  Soliven, et. al.v. Judge Makasiar, where the Court stated that  "(t)he rationale for the grant to the President of the privilege of immunity from suit is to assure the exercise of Presidential duties and functions free from any hindrance or distraction, considering that being a Chief Executive of the Government is a job that, aside from requiring all of the office-holder’s time, also demands undivided attention." Yet, Soliven disproved its own point. In this case, then President Corazon Aquino  sued journalist Louie Beltran for libel occasioned by the latter's report that she hid under the bed at the height of a coup d’ etat against her administration. This suggestion of being a lameduck President so enraged Ms Aquino that she dragged her accuser to court. She was not denied access to the courts. And why should she? She was also a citizen subject to the same rights and obligations as the next citizen. At any rate, the point here is that under the doctrine of necessary implications, if the President can institute complaints under the spirit of the Constitution, s/he may also be made to respond to complaints. And if s/he can sue while President, then his/her attention gets divided. Soliven thus allows the President's attention to be divided, which immunity seeks to prevent.

David v Arroyo's pronouncement on presidential immunity was merely an obiter dictum (or a "by the way" comment, for those who are not familiar with legal gobbledygook) but it would be cited later in Lozada v. Arroyo. Regardless of this, the Supreme Court in Davide  relied on the judgment of the US Supreme Court in Mississippi v. Johnson. This case was decided in the 1866 when the United States of America was engaged in a civil war which required that the President should not be distracted. To invoke this decision as a precedent is absurd considering that the exigencies obtaining in the United States at the time Mississippi was promulgated are not obtaining, even remotely, in the Philippines at present.

Philippine jurisprudence on presidential immunity is not supported by the Constitution. At the risk of belaboring the point, the textual or literal expression of presidential immunity present in the 1973 Constitution was dropped by the 1987 Constitution, which must be interpreted as abandonment by the people of a provision that could entrench tyranny.

Moreover, the principle of rule of law and the basic tenet that democracy is a government of laws and not of people pervade our Constitution in spirit and must be considered written there. It is also remarkable that the United States on whose Constitution was based the Constitution of the Philippines, abandoned absolute presidential immunity from suit as a doctrine. In US v Nixon, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rejected President Richard Nixon’s  claim of immunity from judicial processes because of executive privilege.

In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a divided SCOTUS  ruled that an absolute presidential immunity for official acts was existing for reasons of public policy. The absence of such immunity "could distract a President from his public duties, to the detriment not only of the President and his office but also the Nation that the Presidency was designed to serve." The immunity according to the doctrine in Nixon applies only to official acts, but not to crimes and other unofficial acts. In Clinton v Jones, the SCOTUS said that a sitting President is not immune from suit for acts committed before election.

 
During his tenure, President George Bush was similarly haled to court. Among cases against him were Boumediene v. Bush, and Rasul v. Bush, both of which involved presidential acts, not private acts. That Nixon, Clinton, and Bush as sitting Presidents were sued and the SCOTUS did not dismiss the cases against them on grounds of immunity as our courts do when the President is in the same boat is a recognition that the US President is not, or is no longer, immune from suit as a rule. 

These are already telling indicia that the SCOTUS  has been departing from the undemocratic notion that the President is immune from suits, parallel to legal developments in other democracies in the world which have since rejected claims of presidential immunity from suit or immunity for heads of governments including presidents and prime ministers.

In the international community, what is currently recognized is immunity of heads of government for purely sovereign acts abandoning an antiquated legal relic that  sovereigns could not be fallible. Discarding presidential immunity merely affirms a basic tenet of democracy: that in democracies, there are no leviathans other than the sovereign people.

Geographically closer to the Philippines is Thailand. Last year, its Constitutional Court purged Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra from office for abuse of power committed when she illegally transferred a civil service servant to another office more than three years ago. Along with the Prime Minister, other members of the cabinet who were in office at the time the transfer was effected were likewise ordered to step down.

For many of the reasons I cited, the National Union of Peoples' Lawyers disagrees that the President is immune from suit. We always implead the President in cases where acts of the Executive Branch are assailed.

Now, even granting that the President is immune from suit, the underpinning reason for the immunity does not obtain in the case of the Vice-President: the President should not be distracted from the exercise of presidential powers.Indeed, the President has many powers under the Constitution. But how many powers does the Vice President have under the Constitution? None at all. S/he is a spare tire for the presidency and that is not a power.When appointed to a Cabinet position, s/he exercises powers as an alter ego of the President but not as VP.

Thus, Justice Secretary De Lima's legal opinion that the  Vice President is immune from suit is so, so flawed.