Death is one of the most universal of taboos. Not the rituals of grief, burial and mourning which are many, varied and almost always public in character. I mean the actual act of dying. This most mysterious of earthly transitions is done in private, even for the most well-known of persons, with a few family and close friends in attendance and maybe a man or woman of God around to ease the way.

Public deaths, on the other hand, serve a social purpose. For instance, public executions are meant to be cathartic events in which society extracts its pound of flesh, as it were. It supposedly serves as a deterrent to criminal or aberrant behavior and reflects the manner by which justice is served within a community. It’s also morbidly entertaining and can even be interactive, such as in the practice of stoning or the spectators’ participation in the gory events in the Roman Colosseum.

Other public deaths, such as the assassination of Ninoy Aquino, serve as a catalyst for social upheaval and change.

Suicide is a more complicated phenomenon in which no easy generalizations can be made. It can be done privately or in plain of view others, but even the most secretive act of taking one’s life assumes a public aspect upon the discovery of the body. The act itself is shocking under any circumstance, being so contrary to what we normally know and expect of human behavior. Thus, the ripple effects of a suicide extend beyond the immediate family or social circle of the victim to the society at large. I knowingly use the word “victim” as I believe those who kill themselves are casualties of one or another of life’s events which makes continued living unbearable. However, some suicides are more publicly significant that others.

The suicide of Mohamed Boazizi, a young Tunisian who immolated himself in protest over the oppressive and autocratic rule of strongman Zine el Abidine Ben Ali and led to his ouster, is a public death. It started a conflagration which has spread to Egypt and threatens to engulf the entire region. In 60 years, there has never been one case of a successful, popular revolt toppling an Arab regime; now, within a span of 2 months, two governments in the Middle East have fallen.

The suicide of Anglo Reyes is a public death, as he led a public life which, for good or ill, “shaped and reflected the events of his time“. As explained by Prof. Randy David:

Although he was a professional military man, Angelo T. Reyes became a key player in the nation’s political stage. Whether he welcomed it or not, he unexpectedly found himself, as head of the Armed Forces, thrust into the role of political arbiter during the crisis of January 2001. At that crucial moment, the military became, once again, the deciding factor in an unstable political equation. Reyes made the decision to lead his soldiers in withdrawing support from President Joseph Estrada, paving the way for the accession to the presidency of Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Having cast his lot with GMA, Mr. Reyes prospered for a long while, even after he retired from military service. He assumed numerous cabinet posts, in fact too many, according to his detractors. This may have been his undoing as he should have sought elective position earlier, and retained some degree of political power and influence, before he was permanently tarred by the corrupt brush of the shamelessly venal Arroyo administration.

Stripped of political influence, he knew that he was vulnerable. He had a thorough understanding of how the political system works—its hypocrisy, its rottenness, and its rituals of degradation. But he could not summon enough will to bow to its sometimes brutal ways once he found himself at the receiving end of power.

And so he ended his life. And this is not always the easy way out, as many would like to believe. It takes a certain amount to steel in one’s personality to pull the trigger.

On a certain level, his motivation was certainly self-serving. He was, by his own estimation, extremely self-assured, even arrogant in the eyes of others. He wanted to regain some control over events which now threatened to destroy him, his family and what he saw as his historical legacy, most specially as a professional soldier. His suicide was premeditated and not an impulsive act, which are how most suicides are seen by those who study the phenomenon. Angelo Reyes knew what he was doing. He said so himself. In his “last” interview he stated pointedly:

Living life without honor is a tragedy bigger than death itself.

He could have stonewalled and gone the legal route in deflecting the accusations against him. Others have done so and lived to tell the tale (as well as enjoy their ill-gotten wealth). But this was not the soldier’s way. As a warrior, honor impelled him to fall on his sword. In doing so, he was successful to some extent in saving his good name and dignity. This is an example which others similarly situated should consider following, for their own sake and, more importantly, for the good of the country.

The tragedy of Angelo Reyes is that, despite his avowed intention to “come clean”, in the end he did not. He lacked the courage to name names and help cleanse the institutions which he served so loyally and bravely. And he tried to minimize his role by saying, truthfully enough, that: “I did not invent corruption. I walked into it“. But he lacked the will to walk out of it, until the only way he could leave was horizontally and feet first.

Be that as it may, the man is dead, and we condole with his family and friends as “Taps” is played today for a fallen warrior.

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

Philippine Star columnist Yoly Villanueva-Ong wrote an impassioned piece in support of the discredited and scrapped “Pilipinas Kay Ganda” branding campaign of the Department of Tourism. Ms. Villanueva-Ong is the founder and head of the Campaigns and Grey ad agency, which helped conceptualize the aborted undertaking. By her own admission, she is not a disinterested observer.

In rather purple prose, she expressed her indignation at the “coordinated online outrage” by a “Gruesome Malicious Army” and “net-dicts” intending “to wreck havoc on the new, popular government“. It’s GMA and her stooges and a shadowy cabal “who fancy themselves divas of righteousness” behind all this, you see, and it’s all politically-motivated. “Politically-motivated” being the standard, catch-all retort of those caught in the act of bending the rules for their own benefit.

But this argument skirts the central issue of the whole brouhaha, which is that the whole concept was a bad idea to begin with and was simply called out for being what it was – a bad idea. And which is why the head of the new, popular government shelved the whole scheme.

And Ms. Villanueva-Ong, with her Harvard degree (as she takes pains to point out in her article), is dead wrong about there being an orchestrated, unified effort to stick it to the vanguard of the new, popular government (as personified by DOT Usec Vicente “Enteng” Romano, the brains behind the slogan/logo fiasco). By this, she presumably means an attack utilizing social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook and other online communities. Ms. Villanueva-Ong misses the point of what social networking is all about, which is simply to foster social interaction. It’s not primarily to bring about social or political change, although that may well happen. But at its core, social-networking is simply people wanting to connect with other like-minded people. There is no sinister, hidden agenda.

Malcolm Gladwell explains this lucidly in his article in the New Yorker (October 2010) “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted” in which he explains why Tweeter and other new tools of social media will not necessarily be an effective tool for social activism. Gladwell makes a distinction between “strong-tie” groups, for example the nascent Al Qaeda, characterized by a tight, hierarchical organization and pre-existing interpersonal ties between members and what he calls “weak-ties” groups, like Twitter or Facebook, which are loose, democratic and decentralized.

“The platforms of social media are built around weak ties. Twitter is a way of following (or being followed) by people you may never have met. Facebook is a tool for efficiently managing your acquaintances, for keeping up with the people you would not otherwise be able to stay in touch with. That’s why you can have a thousand “friends” on Facebook, as you never could in real life.

The evangelists of social media don’t understand this distinction: they seem to believe that a Facebook friend is the same as a real friend xxx.

Because networks don’t have a centralized leadership structure and clear lines of authority, they have real difficulty reaching consensus and setting goals. They can’t think strategically; they are chronically prone to conflict and error. How do you make difficult choices about tactics or strategy or philosophical direction when everyone has an equal say?”

No one can manage, must less control, the denizens of cyberspace and point them one direction. It’s like herding cats, as I’ve heard it said more than once. At best, social networks can disseminate information and ideas. But concepts, abstractions and theories, once thrown unto the online free market of ideas, live or die on their on merits.

I’m sorry to disappoint Ms. Villanueva-Ong, but there is no movement out there which wants her “stoned, flayed, crucified and burned at the stake“. I can understand her disappointment though because, as she herself reported: “the fight is not about who should lead the marketing effort, but who will disburse the marketing monies“.

This is another clear example of the paranoia afflicting the stalwarts of the new, popular government. They see enemies lurking in every bush, woodpile and website. They refuse to acknowledge the plain, though painful, truth that the cause of all their woes is their own arrogance, ineptitude and cluelessness.

One final word. What is to me very disturbing about Ms. Villanueva-Ong’s article is her saying that the P4.7 million or U.S. $ 105,000 (her own calculations) misspent on the “preview” launch of the “Pilipinas Kay Ganda” concept is a “paltry” sum spent for “food, drinks, fireworks, talents, staging etc.”. For her, maybe, P5 million is small change. But for many Filipinos like me, who have never been near much less had at my disposal such an amount, this is a king’s ransom. Scores of our countrymen die each day for want of even a minuscule fraction of what Ms. Villanueva-Ong considers paltry. And lest Ms. Villanueva-Ong forget, this is the Filipino people’s money, paid for by the blood, sweat, tears and even lives of Filipinos here and abroad. We have a right, as taxpayers, to a proper accounting. We have a right, as Filipinos, to be outraged.

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

Almost four year ago, I wrote an entry “Flying the Coop” in which I observed:

A recent news item says that more pilots have been leaving the country for greener pastures overseas. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) has lost about 20% of its pilots over the last three years and more are about to fly the coop. This is an alarming development in our continuing brain drain. Even our best trained and highest compensated professionals are packing their bags. A desperate policy resolution from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration limiting the number of pilots who can work for international airlines has failed to stem the tide.

Things have apparently gotten worse since. Over the weekend, at least 23 international and domestic PAL flights have been cancelled due to the fact that there were no pilots to fly PAL planes. Eight more flights were cancelled today.

Apparently, a critical number of PAL’s A320 Airbus pilots resigned and immediately left for more lucrative posts overseas, without giving sufficient notice or allowing for enough time to bring replacements on board. This prompted PAL management to threaten legal action against the fleeing aviators, citing flagrant violations of their training and employment contracts. Unfortunately, going to court won’t solve PAL’s woes. The judicial process will just drag on without addressing the fundamental reality that PAL cannot compete with the wages and perks being offered by other airlines in the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East. Market forces are at work here which will not bend to PAL’s will.

A restrictive employment covenant in their employment contracts may prevent some of these aviators and other skilled workers from transferring to competitors abroad. This is a common enough clause in contracts for so-called “mission critical” workers, or those who are considered integral to an industry’s sustainability. But this will not solve the problem. PAL cannot seek judicial enforcement of every agreement that may be breached by its pilots. And under settled cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the restriction is valid and reasonable and does not impose an “undue burden” on the employee. It can be convincingly argued that working in the Philippines constitutes an undue burden.

Sadly, this goes beyond mere inconvenience and embarrassment. It’s a major setback for the air travel and tourism industries. And it actually places the flying public in grave danger as PAL and other airlines might be tempted to allow underqualified or raw pilots to handle its planes.

This trend has grave implications, not the least of which is its effect on domestic air travel safety. With our best pilots and flight engineers gone, can the airlines ensure that the riding public is given a safe ride ? We foresee turbulence ahead for the airline industry.

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

Justice Mariano Del Castillo is being accused of plagiarism in not properly citing the scholarly authorities used in the decision in Viduya vs. Executive Secretary, which he penned. An ethics committee has been formed to investigate the matter, chaired by Chief Justice Renato Corona, with Justice Teresita de Castro as the working chair and Justices Roberto Abad, Jose Perez, and Jose Mendoza as members.

But did he actually copy the words of an article written by Mark Ellis, executive director of the International Bar Association, and passed them off as his own ? Mr. Ellis’ article, entitled “Breaking the Silence on Rape as an International Crime”, was published in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law and makes the case for considering rape as a crime against humanity, like piracy, genocide and other heinous offenses, and therefore “ subject to universal jurisdictions under customary international law”.

The Viduya ruling, in disposing of the claims of Filipino victims of Japan’s wartime policy of forcing women to work as sex slaves serving Japanese soldiers, held that the Philippines is under no obligation to assist in pursuing the comfort women’s claims. It essentially becomes a diplomatic issue. According to the Court, since “ The Executive Department has determined that taking up petitioners’ cause would be inimical to our country’s foreign policy interests, and could disrupt our relations with Japan thereby creating serious implications for stability in this region”, the Court cannot compel the government to take up the cudgels for the victims. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Although it may appear from a quick and superficial reading of the Ellis article and the Viduya ruling that they espouse differing views on how rape should be treated under international law, they are actually on the same page. Both seem to “ fully agree that rape, sexual slavery, torture, and sexual violence are morally reprehensible as well as legally prohibited under contemporary international law”. But it was precisely in explaining the immediately preceding quote that Justice Del Castillo might have sailed into intellectually dishonest waters.

In the decision’s footnote (no. 65) to the quoted sentence, Mr. Ellis noticed uncanny similarities with the words and structure of his article and was understandably concerned. Here he was, presenting his best arguments for rape to be considered as a crime against the whole world, and it was being used in a judicial decision which says that this just isn’t yet so. Both are correct, from each one’s perspective, but it was unfair for Mr. Ellis’ that his ideas would be so utilized. Not only was there no proper acknowledgment or attribution, his words were used to bolster a position which he was opposing. A bit like being “fried in your own lard”, to use a popular Filipino saying.

What is plagiarism ? A good working definition is provided by uslegal.com, as follows:

Intentional or unintentional use of another’s words or ideas without acknowledging this use constitutes plagiarism: There are four common forms of plagiarism:

• The duplication of an author’s words without quotation marks and accurate references or footnotes.
• The duplication of author’s words or phrases with footnotes or accurate references, but without quotation marks.
• The use of an author’s ideas in paraphrase without accurate references or footnotes.
• Submitting a paper in which exact words are merely rearranged even though footnoted.

But did Mr. Justice Del Castillo really lift words and phrases from Ellis’ work and pass them off as his own ? From where I sit, it looks like he did. It’s doesn’t jump out at you and one had best read the Ellis article and the Vinuya decision in full before deciding, but it seems Mr. Ellis has a point. Apart from verbatim phrases lifted from the article, the flow of Mr. Ellis’ ideas, or at least a significant part of them, appears to have been duplicated in the Vinuya decision.

We may grant that, as Justice Del Castillo said in his defense, there was no malicious intent in his inclusion of Mr. Ellis’ work and that these were mere “appendages” which would not have affected the final outcome even if they were removed. But the fact remains that he may have copied Ellis’ words without attribution and this is more than sufficiently damning. It all comes down to a question of integrity. If the Supreme Court can be dishonest in seemingly minor things, how can we expect it to be truthful and forthright on the bigger issues ?

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

Photo by Anton Sheker of Blogwatch.ph

It was a good start, as these things go. The air was festive at the site of the presidential inaugural ceremonies, in the sense that it felt like a campaign rally for Noynoy Aquino. The predominance of yellow was expected although still a bit grating to those of us who were not enamoured of the President to begin with.

The entertainment segment preceding the formal oath-taking was entertaining, although some elements were a bit off. Juana Change as mistress of ceremonies, removed from the context of anti-government rallies, looked lost, fat and freakish. The songs were rehashes of campaign ditties with a few revisions to make them more “inclusive”. There was an earnest attempt to give life to a theme of reconciliation but it was still sounded and felt like a victory party for President Noynoy. Fair enough. He won and is now the Head of State.

P-Noy looked embarrassed at times at the outpouring of love and acclamation. Jojo Binay looked alternately bored and annoyed, slumped next to his boss, but came to life when it was his turn to take the oath of office. The foreign dignitaries looked bemused and bewildered at all the hoopla. Erap Estrada looked pensive, maybe looking back at the many lost opportunities. Kris Aquino appeared troubled but the rest of the Aquino sisters were glowingly beautiful. Chief Justice Renato Corona was putting a good face to an awkward situation.

Or so it seemed to me watching things unfold on T.V. The personalities and speculating on what they might have been feeling was far more interesting than the actual event itself. It is a historical watershed, for all that, and was all it was touted to be: part celebration, part pep rally, part traditional commemoration of yet another shift in the Philippine political galaxy, the first peaceful transition from one administration to another in 12 years.

But as for lasting change ? We shall see.

There was nothing at all earthshaking about his inaugural speech. The same issues which served him well during the campaign were trotted out: the fight against corruption, the need for employment generation, creating a healthy investment climate, adequate health services and the like. He reserved his fighting words for his predecessor and promised that those who thrived under her crooked reign would face the bar of justice. He shrewdly relied on his folksy, populist approach, more reminiscent of Erap than Cory, promising not to tolerate abuses of power but forgetting to mention that “walang kama-kamaganak”.

It certainly creates great expectations from the citizenry, even among us who did not vote for President Aquino. Expectations which, if not managed well, could spell trouble for him down the road. But he knows this, and has brought the Filipino people into the equation, as shown by the repetitive rituals of oath-taking during the ceremony involving the crowd. Just to bring home the point that good governance is everyone’s responsibility.

He sometimes tripped on his words and seemed short of breath, with his smoker’s cough threatening to make an appearance at one point. But all went well in the end.

A few points I can think of why I’m optimistic about a Noynoy presidency.

First, there’s no doubt that he was popularly elected. He can draw on the goodwill and euphoria generated by his having been swept into office in such a fairy-tale fashion. People will cut him some slack, beyond the so-called 100 days honeymoon period. He has the opportunity and luxury of making hard, even unpopular, decisions during his first months in office, maybe until the end of the year. He can make full use of it.

And he has shown some political astuteness in choosing some good people for his cabinet and not limiting his candidates to those who openly supported him and he feels comfortable with. Like Linda Baldoz as Labor Secretary.

Also, he can slap down people if need be, quietly but firmly. He handled Jojo Binay and Gen. Delfin Bangit quite well when they tried to bully him. He put them in their proper place, which is outside what they presumptuously believe is their vested sphere of influence.

As Colin Powell said, being in charge means pissing some people off. Noynoy can show them who’s in charge, if he wants to.

It was raining hard this morning but now the sun’s out. A good sign.

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

Talking to reporters during his retirement ceremony yesterday, outgoing Chief Justice Reynato Puno commented on the refusal of president-elect Noynoy Aquino to take his oath of office before the incoming Chief Justice, Renato Corona. C.J. Puno said that Mr. Aquino should “respect the rule of law” in answer to a question regarding Aquino’s plan of being sworn in by a yet unnamed barangay captain in Tarlac province. This as a way of snubbing GMA’s choice of Puno’s successor, a “midnight appointee” from Noynoy’s point of view. Even though the Supreme Court was nearly unanimous (Justice Carpio-Morales dissented) in declaring that the president “has an imperative duty under the Constitution to fill up the vacancies” in the S.C. even if she is set to leave in a few weeks, delicadeza be damned.

To be sure, there is nothing in the Constitution or the law which would compel Noynoy to take his oath of office before the Chief Justice. All that is required is that the person be authorized to administer oaths. For this purpose, a barangay head would be as good as any justice.

But tradition is sometimes weightier than the the letter (or non-letter) of the law. Only two past Philippine presidents (Quezon and Osmena) were not sworn into office by the Philippine C.J., during the commonwealth and war periods. All post-independence presidents took their office of office before the Chief Justice. The reason is simple: this is a recognition of the separation of powers between the three main branches of government and an acknowledgment of the respect and deference due the leader of a supposedly co-equal branch. Although in reality, an imperial presidency trumps both the legislature and judiciary in terms of actual power and prestige.

What then does Chief Justice Puno mean about adhering to the rule of law, when no statute would be violated by Noynoy’s refusal to be sworn in by Corona ? In the consolidated cases of De Castro et. al. vs. the Judicial and Bar Council and Gloria Arroyo, the Supreme Court decreed that the prohibition against midnight appointments is confined to the executive branch and does not include the judiciary. In resolving the motions for reconsideration filed by petitioners De Castro et. al., the Court even more emphatically declared:

The Members of the Court vote on the sole basis of their conscience and the merits of the issues. Any claim to the contrary proceeds from malice and condescension. Neither the outgoing President nor the present Members of the Court had arranged the current situation to happen and to evolve as it has. None of the Members of the Court could have prevented the Members composing the Court when she assumed the Presidency about a decade ago from retiring during her prolonged term and tenure, for their retirements were mandatory. Yet, she is now left with an imperative duty under the Constitution to fill up the vacancies created by such inexorable retirements within 90 days from their occurrence. Her official duty she must comply with. So must we ours who are tasked by the Constitution to settle the controversy.

Simply stated, the Supreme Court gave the green light for GMA to appoint the next Chief Justice and therefore, her appointment of Mr. Justice Corona is valid and legal. Since settled jurisprudence forms part of the law of the land, the De Castro ruling is binding on us all, even presidents-elect. For Noynoy to brush aside the practical effects of settled case law, no matter how distasteful, is to send the message that he considers himself above the law. Like it or not, Corona is the C.J. by virtue of the De Castro ruling.

Of course, all these complications would not have arisen if GMA had the propriety to demur from appointing the next Chief Justice. Or if Corona had the rectitude to refuse the appointment. But things being what they are, we have the unseemly situation of one branch of government openly hostile to another over what is essentially a matter that can be easily resolved.

I am personally puzzled why Noynoy Aquino would make a big fuss over this. It makes for an inauspicious start. This is a chance for Aquino to be gracious and magnanimous in victory. He might even be able to convert Corona into an ally. His petulance is unnecessarily decisive. Worse, it indicates a certain narrow-mindedness and a knee-jerk tendency to portray anything or anyone associated with GMA as inherently evil and threatening, without putting the matter into proper perspective.

To take the oath of office before Corona may be a political gesture but it is hardly meaningless or empty. It shows that the new president has the requisite humility and understanding of how the government works by making his first official act a formal cognizance of the fact that he does not wield absolute power.

The newly elected president ought not, like Napoleon, crown himself, which is what he would be doing if he requires a barangay captain to swear him in. They both belong to the executive branch and it’s a safe bet that he/she supported Noynoy in the elections. What follower would pass up the opportunity to induct his sovereign into office ? Mr. Aquino understandably feels safe with those who idolize him. But it would not be the same as Noynoy reaching out to those he perceives to be his enemies and showing the country that he is big enough to fill his late mother’s shoes.
———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

An air of excited expectancy was palpable in our neighborhood this morning. There was a feeling that the day ahead would be full of surprises, hopefully not unpleasant. We live right across a voting precinct and the place was abuzz with activity the past few days. The poll personnel and volunteers were there a full two hours before the voting was to officially start, although the cops and military who were guarding the place were camped out days before.

As always, it’s a chaotic process: long queues, inaccurate voters’ lists, the confused electorate mingling (and occasionally tangling) with the frazzled election officials, shady characters working for the various candidates hovering in the sidelines. A crazy stew exacerbated by the steamy summer heat.

But after you get through the long lines, the voting itself is relatively quick and painless. Simple, fast and apparently transparent. The PCOS machines, at least where we voted, worked wonderfully. I saw smiling faces leaving the polling place. Even the police looked relaxed and happy. Or maybe it’s just me feeling good about politics for the first time in a very long while.

Once we get through this phase of familiarizing ourselves with the technology, there will be no going back. This is what Alvin Toffler called “the synchronization of human behavior with the rhythms of the machine”. After this, people’s perception and expectations about the electoral process will be transformed.

It’s about building trust, as explained by Alejandro Roces. Despite the many initial apprehensions and glitches, automated elections are here to stay. And it may be premature, but I want to congratulate the COMELEC for a job well done.

It is now up to us to live with the consequences of what we did today.

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

This is in response to a friend’s bewildered query as to why I’m not voting for Noynoy.

In September of last year, I wrote a post in which I said that we should give Noynoy Aquino the benefit of doubt until he shows us that there is something behind that bland (bald?) demeanor other than tired platitudes and empty promises, the hallmark of the trapo. Nine months on, he has not said or done anything which would have convinced me that he has the qualities to become a capable president. In addition to other reasons enumerated in another later post, the following points have convinced me that the country is in deep trouble should he succeed:

1. He did not fight a “good fight” – In the sense that St. Paul meant, that we should exhibit intelligence, humility and moral courage in all our struggles. Or at least try to.

Instead, he relied on mudslinging and black propaganda. Most of the presidential candidates did so too, but his was the most odious in terms of viciousness and because of his oft-stated claim of virtuousness by reason of parentage. This two-faced and cynical approach to politics means it will be business as usual if he gains power. While mouthing high-minded ideals, he conducted his campaign at the level of the gutter. He will bring this hypocritical outlook to Malacanang.

His true character was revealed when Chiz Escudero unveiled the NOYBI initiative to stab Mar Roxas in the back. It took him a long while to publicly repudiate the effort and reaffirm support for his embattled running mate. This despite the fact that Mar selflessly paved the way for Noynoy’s run.

It was Mar again who immediately and graciously stated that any support for the standard bearer is welcome although it might bode ill for him. Say what you will about Mar Roxas, no one can deny that he’s a class act. In contrast to Noynoy’s new buddy, Jojo Binay, who out-trapoed the trapos in order to build a dynasty in Makati. Jojemar is telling the truth though. If he wins, he’s going to do to the rest of the country what he did to Makati, which is to say institutionalize patronage politics and corruption.

2. He’s weak – As shown by the fact that he consistently fails or refuses to exercise effective control over his supporters. And I don’t mean just his handlers, who are another breed altogether.

I refer to those who support him out of a strong sense of identification with Noynoy and his vague call for change. The members of his vaunted yellow army. They instinctively and viciously attack anyone who cannot profess unbridled love for their idol. I have almost been on the receiving end of their neck vein-bursting rage a number of times the past month. Only my good looks, charm and well-known prowess in the martial arts saved me. Even online, I can feel the spittle flying.

As for his handlers, Noynoy allowed them to run his campaign any way they damn well please. A strange mix of disgruntled and discredited former Erap and GMA officials, this detestable bunch, along with some new allies of opportunity, have imposed their agenda on the whole undertaking. It’s a safe bet that they will likewise dictate the agenda for a Noynoy presidency.

To be fair, there are numerous fine and upstanding people in the Noynoy camp, just as there are in the others. But if it’s true that the personal qualities of a leader are reflected in the kind of followers he has, then we have much to fear indeed.

3. He has a dangerous sense of entitlement – As proven by his declaration that should he lose, he will unleash People Power such as would make the troubles in Thailand a romp in the park by comparison.

Noynoy obviously thinks that he owns People Power as a birthright. That he can trot it out like an ordinary political gimmick to serve his own ends anytime he feels like it. This is the height of arrogance and irresponsibility. He’s beginning to sound more and more like Kris Aquino by the day.

This attitude degrades the historical significance of EDSA I and cheapens the memory of his sainted mother who played a central role in bringing it about.

Not even Cory would deign to claim People Power as hers alone. No one owns People Power, least of all Noynoy, who was physically safe and far from the crowds which risked their lives during those perilous days of February 1986. As Amado Doronila pointed out:

In his simplistic reconstruction of the events surrounding Edsa I, and in his effort to wrap himself in the Edsa mystique and as heir to the Edsa tradition started by her mother, Noynoy Aquino seeks to reinvent Edsa as an event that will automatically replicate itself if he is cheated in the May 10 elections. No one owns the Edsa tradition, and much less Cory Aquino’s heirs.

The people will not take to the streets in case Noynoy is wronged in the election, at the bidding of an outraged Noynoy Aquino. The most that can be expected is a strong backlash and outrage, but the cheated voters will not take directions from Noynoy.

And for simply telling it like it is, Julio Cardinal Rosales was promptly pilloried by Noynoy’s attack dogs, like Conrad De Quiros in his typically overwrought style, calling him a fat, cynical clown akin to Mike Arroyo (the next to ultimate insult one can throw today). When all the good Cardinal said was to give the electoral process a chance.

In his public pronouncements Noynoy comes across as a typical spoiled rich kid, as bratty as they come. If I lose the election, people will throw themselves under tanks. Somehow, I’m not surprised. But I am scared for us all if and when he takes office as president. A brat will never be satisfied even if he gets all the toys and goodies he screams for.

That said, I should admit that our family is divided on the issue of who should be the next president. Some family members will be voting for Noynoy, others for Villar, and some for Gibo. But we are one in our belief in the electoral process, flawed though it is, and in our respect for each one’s opinions and beliefs. And we are optimistic, despite the naysayers, that the people’s will will triumph in the end.

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

If anyone seems to be having the most fun out of campaigning for the presidency, it looks to me like Dick Gordon.

Just check out his video with the comedy duo Moymoy Palaboy which has gone viral. This is not the demeanor of a man lagging far behind in the polls. He looks and sounds like a winner.

The irrepressible Gordon is nothing if not audacious. After failing to keep the U.S. bases in his bailiwick of Olongapo City (God stepped in anyway with the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo to ensure that the Americans well and truly left), he turned what could have been a calamitous situation into a golden opportunity. Pushing for the establishment of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, he converted the former U.S. naval base into a thriving freeport, creating more jobs and revenue than when the U.S. military was there.

As Secretary of Tourism, he once again showed his marketing savvy (he was at one time a brand marketing exec for P & G), boosting foreign and local tourism after years in the doldrums. He was also the high profile head of the Philippine National Red Cross, making his presence felt at every natural or man-made disaster even while serving in the Senate.

All is not sweetness and light in Gordon country, however. Long-time anti-U.S. bases activist, child-welfare advocate and Gordon critic, Catholic priest Fr. Shay Cullen, paints a dark picture of a Godfather-like warlord who will not hesitate to use extreme measures to silence his critics and get his way. But this image did not gain wide acceptance in the public mind.

His Senate stint, as one among twenty-four other gigantic egos, must have convinced Dick Gordon, a man of action (with a mouth to match), that he had to move to a bigger stage.

His running mate, Bayani Fernando, is no slouch in the accomplishment and chutzpah department either. A self-made billionaire, he made the once-backward Marikina City the best example of how a progressive and well-administered urban center should be. Although he doesn’t seem to be having as much fun as his partner, burdened perhaps by worries about the recovery of Marikina, one of the areas hardest hit by Typhoon Ondoy, and challenges to his family’s political hegemony in the city be built up.

But going by his track record alone, Dick Gordon should be the most qualified to be the next Philippine president. Alas, the surveys say otherwise.

Gordon is unfazed. “You want to go for the winner just because his ratings are higher? Even if he’s the wrong [choice]? Go ahead.” Gordon has been quoted as saying. Freed from worry and pressure by being a tailender, his credibility and reputation intact and rising, Dick can plunge wholeheartedly and fearlessly into the fray.

And who knows ? Mr. Gordon has faced long odds before and emerged triumphant. There are enough voters, myself included, who are waffling between this candidate and that and who might just be swayed on election day by the memory of Dick dancing to “The Lion Sleeps Tonight”. Or the endorsement of Butch Dalisay, parts of which I reproduce below (without permission, but I’m sure my tocayo won’t mind):

“I’ve never done this before, but I’m going out on a limb to make an endorsement. And I’m going to do that because the stakes are just too high, the situation too dire, for someone in my position—who might yet persuade the uninformed or the uncertain—to sit idly by as the most important presidential election of the post-Marcos era takes place.
Having gone through martial law, two EDSAs, and the interminably long night of GMA’s hold on power (something she might yet extend with her run for Congress, and presumably the Speakership and Prime Ministership, if the chips fall her way again), I’m convinced that we Pinoys have punished ourselves enough with bad and corrupt leadership. If we elect another lemon to the Palace again, we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves.

My vote will go to that person who I think has the experience, the integrity, the intelligence, the vision, the compassion and the discipline to best serve as our next president. After reviewing the options, I conclude that that person can only be Sen. Richard ‘Dick’ Gordon. He’s running along with former Marikina mayor and Metro Manila chief Bayani ‘BF’ Fernando — whose teaming up with Gordon was something of a masterstroke, focusing attention on the reputations of both men as proven, no-nonsense performers (or, the way Gordon puts it “transformers” — people who change society).

One just has to look at what Gordon has done in Subic and Olongapo, and what Fernando did to Marikina, to see how they have delivered on their word. Both places provide working demonstrations of what inspired leadership and political will can achieve.

True, both men have big egos, and can come across to Filipinos accustomed to being wooed and massaged as being brusque or even abrasive when they need to get things done. But that’s nothing compared to the smiling impunity with which GMA and her crew weakened, rather than strengthened, our people’s faith in government.

In a country plagued by disasters of every kind, Dick’s 40 years of hands-on experience with the Red Cross should be invaluable. At a time when Philippine-American relations need to be managed with both firmness and finesse, Gordon trumps all his fellow aspirants in experience in dealing with the Americans, knowing when to stand up to them and when to seek their cooperation.

xxx Can Dick Gordon win? The surveys don’t look too good at the moment, but it’s up to us to decide whether to let the surveys — or we ourselves — choose our best next President.”

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

There are two (actually three, with John having Him say a matter-of-fact summation of his mission on earth: “It is Finished”) versions of what Jesus Christ said as he suffered and neared death on the cross at Golgotha. The first: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?”

Mark and Matthew attribute this to the dying Christ. It has been interpreted through the centuries as a cry of utter despair and fading hope.

Luke, perhaps finding such words repugnant as it suggests a slide into black doubt, says that Christ’s words were actually: “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” Modern believers are more comfortable with Luke’s version, as His dying words are more in keeping with common doctrinal teachings that God will look after us and never leave us.

For all we know, He may have uttered both, they are not incompatible.

But I personally find the Mark and Matthew portrayal more realistic, more believable. We can easily relate to it. Who has not, at some dark hour, cried out to the heavens in anguish and pain and wondered if indeed we have been cursed and abandoned by God ? Jesus was a man, after all, and revealed his humanity many times, in many ways. Why not in death ?

Philip Yancey points out that it is this single time, of all His prayers in the Gospels, that Jesus used the formal, distant “God” rather than “Abba” or “Father”. He was quoting from a psalm (Psalm XXII,18), of course, but he was also expressing a deep sense of estrangement. The Son abandoned by the Father. No theologian can adequately explain the nature of what took place within the Trinity on that day in Calvary.

I find this the most poignant example of Christ’s humanity. It brings me closer to Him as we are all, at many difficult times in our lives, children who feel abandoned by the Father. But somehow we are given the strength and grace to surrender and say: “Thy will be done”

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?