To show support for the Flag Days, the Philippine flag will be displayed on this blog’s header, until June 12, 2006. Show your support by displaying the flag on your Web site/blog.

A news item (relegated to the Metro section) last Tuesday stated that five supporters of Joseph Estrada were abducted by armed men last Monday. Then yesterday, Eduardo Ermita denies the administration had a hand in the said abduction. Even if it was done by the military, Ermita was quick to wash hands, saying that “These are operational matters that you don’t expect the Palace to have knowledge of.” It is either he is lying, or the Fortress by the Pasig is not in control of the AFP and the ISAFP. Or both?

Hours after that interview with Ermita, the AFP has admitted taking the five men. These men were then charged with rebellion, for allegedly trying to assassinate four Cabinet members.

I have several issues regarding this. One, Why did it take them 2 days before admitting that they have in their custody the five men? Why did it take them 2 days to file charges if they have evidence at hand? I mean, they can’t just “arrest” them without even having any evidence of wrongdoing. Which brings me to the next point.

The seemingly arbitrary arrest made, and the way it was made, should be of concern to all citizens of this country. There should be an outcry. Legal groups should butt in, investigate, and file charges if they found something wrong. For if military can just arrest anyone anytime and anyhow they like, we should be very scared, indeed.

Another point: is assassinating a government official synonymous with rebellion? Since when? Or maybe the news report was badly written?

And I find this sickening, from ABS-CBN News:

Kison, however, was not clear about whether the arrest of the five was covered by warrants. All he said was that charges against Dionisio are pending with the Department of Justice. The four others were rounded up because they were with Dionisio. (emphasis mine)

Also, all rebellion charges filed by this administration this year are all based on eyewitnesses – one eyewitness per case. These cases will turn to I-say-he-says type of cases – flimsy at best. They will all hinge on the character of the witness, and that will be a problem.

Again, since this case doesn’t affect the majority – and their interests are not at stake – they will just ignore this case. Will it embolden the Fortress by the Pasig do push the envelop further? It seems that the three Supreme Court decisions released this month were not enough deterrents for the Fortress; as I have stated somewhere else, those decisions were like slapping a child’s wrists with marshmallow sticks (Justice Isagani Cruz was more restrained when he used the word “felt slippers”). With the seeming apathy, and a paper-tiger SC, expect Gloria Arroyo and her joke court to push the envelop further, until it hurts every one. And hopefully it won’t be too late by then.

Just odds and ends, presented Expectorants style:

• On the murder of Bayan Muna leaders: the consecutive murders of Bayan Muna leaders are troubling. The AFP and the PNP and the Fortress by the Pasig (care of Norberto Gonzales) advance the idea of a purge – communists killing communists. I find this idea troubling and unbelievable. For one, the Communist Party of the Philippines had indeed conducted purges during the 1980s, which dealt a blow to its reputation and probably caused decline in membership. So why do it again? While it will cleanse the organization, it will only damage their reputation and deter others from joining. In this point it is illogical for the CPP hierarchy to order such action. Unless the CPP is now headed by a group of illogical persons.

  Also, it is the duty of the State to protect its citizens. Murders such as these are failures of the State in protecting its citizens. It also shows that there is a failure in the government’s maintenance of law and order. Or, this administration no longer considers Bayan Muna members as citizens of this country. So what if it is a purge? It is still murder, a crime defined under the Revised Penal Code. The PNP must resolve the cases, as it is their duty.

  And also, once and for all, Bayan Muna and similar organizations must categorically deny that they are affiliated with CPPand its armed wing.

• The Internet was usually a reliable source of information. Not anymore.

  Jon Mariano wondered how come GMA has appointed more than 15 justices in the Supreme Court, with no retiring justice until the end of the year.

  The culprit is the ABS-CBN News item that he had read: Palace names 4 Supreme Court justices. Another article was published, this time correctly noting that the appointees were for the Court of Appeals: Court of Appeals has 4 new justices. How I wish ABS-CBN Interactive had issued an erratum.

• Miriam Santiago has proven time and again that principles and beliefs can change. Whether due to enlightenment or plain balimbing, I don’t know. As long as we elect people like her, expect a banana republic for the years to come.
• Justice in this country is really weird and unpredictable. Members of the Parents Enabling Parents Coalition, an organization of parents who bought education plans from the besieged Pacific Plans, were charged with 13 counts of libel at 9 regional trial courts, and arrest warrants were issued. Imagine, the company who had somehow conducted their business badly had the gall to charge their customers with a criminal case! Talk about justice!

  It seems that the libel case stems from several comments made in their Web forum. Now I have issues with this, being a netizen and a maintainer of a Web site. Suppose someone posted a comment in this blog maligning someone else. Should I be charged with libel? Should I be held responsible for someone else’s post in my Web site?

  Now, some might argue that I should be responsible enough to delete comments like these. But would that constitute violation of the Bill of Rights? But then again, some might retort that not all rights are absolute, which would now turn this argument into a chicken-or-egg debate.

  I do not believe in censorship and libel. And if the facts of the case are true, then the said libel suit doesn’t wash. Sub judice, so end of story.

This story will surely send those poor-bashing people gloating: “I told you so”.

My uncle bought a house and lot at Novaliches a decade ago. Back then, the area was OK, lots of empty spaces, with a much better water supply compared to the former place where my late grandmother had lived. So the paperworks were OK, money changed hands, and my grandmother moved into the new place with joy in her heart – her own home, at last. No more rents, no more water supply woes.

The land adjacent to it was vacant at that time. Then the owner began building a house, which is still incomplete after more than 5 years. It is already full of weeds. The land in front of both lots was empty when my uncle’s house (which he gave to my grandmother) was bought. Then the troubles began.

The area is actually full of squatters. The heaven-sent water supply was actually a Trojan horse. While the house indeed have a legal water connection, there is an illegal tap in the yard, and unfortunately it was the “poso ng bayan” (artesian well for the squatters). My grandmother, being a conscientious citizen, cut the illegal tap. Imagine the reactions of the people residing in the squatters area.

The electricity connection is another problem. The meter and the main switch were several meters away from the house, giving my grandmother severe apprehensions that someone would tap on the line. Throughout her lifetime, this never happened.

Then the worst happened. The lot in front was bought by somebody, and immediately built walls around it. The wide expanse that led to my grandmother’s house was reduced to a severely narrow alley, where a single person can pass through. This increased her anxiety; she was specially afraid of fire by then. Also, the number of squatter dwellers increased, further increasing my grandmother’s anxiety. There were times when stones hit the roof. Being a light sleeper, my grandmother spent a lot of sleepless nights.

Then her health became poorer, and she was in the hospital for almost six months. The doctors never found out what’s wrong with her. The family attended to her round the clock; she couldn’t speak. They had to tie her hands to the bed railings, since she kept on pulling out the IV lines, the oxygen line, and every contraptions that the doctors had placed in her. It was a sad moment every minute. She always wanted to go home; you ask her if she want to and she would try to sit up, which she couldn’t by that time.

She died two hours after the New Year of 2003.

And so my uncle got married a year ago, and his family resided in that house, together with an aunt who’s an old maid. Then my uncle left to South Korea to work (as always), and the troubles began. The squatter dwellers approached my aunt and asked if they could get water from the illegal tap. My aunt behemently refused. And a few days later a person from Maynilad came and accused my aunt of using the illegal tap, and threatened to have her jailed. Anxiously she asked for our help, and we had to tell her not to panic, since it was obviously an empty threat. Coincidence, perhaps.

Then just two weeks ago, Meralco men swooped up on the area and cut illegal connections. The squatter dwellers suspected my uncle’s wife for ratting them, and began threatening her. It came to a point when a certain man threatened to lob a grenade on the house. This sent my uncle’s wife into an anxious frenzy, and in the middle of the storm named Caloy, abandoned the house and went somewhere.

The family had long been contemplating on selling the house and lot. But with all the inconveniences of the place, we were not able to sell it, since the buyers priced it low – wower than the price that my uncle had paid for it. He is now contemplating of selling it at a loss.

That’s the price of living within the bounds of the law. That’s the price of living with those who give the other poor a bad name. That’s the price of not believing in the Filipino value called “pakikisama”. Sometimes we really cannot blame the upper class (including the middle class) if they treat the poor with disdain.

Now the extended family is beginning to pack things, and leave that place ASAP, as my uncle had ordered via phone. It is a retreat, a retreat that I believe is uncalled for, since we are on the right; why should we surrender to the law breakers? Why be afraid of empty threats? In the end, this cowardice will only embolden the fools to push the limits of their lawbreaking activities.

The barangay is a useless contraption in this case. Don’t tell us – we already did tell them, but all for naught. It should be abolished for being useless.

---

Personal Note: I had not cried when my grandmother died, not even during the funeral and the burial. There is a paragraph in Simon Birch that resonates to my case – that when someone dies, you lose that person slowly, by missing a lot of things: the smell of her clothes, her laughter, her voice. Only when you miss them all, you begin to know that she’s gone.

I was typing this with tears welling up in my eyes. Only last year did the death of my grandmother made its impact on me. When I was at the cemetery painting her tomb. During her birth anniversaries. During New Year. And now, today.

In the aftermath of David v. Gloria Arroyo, which had condemned the specific actions of the executive department in the name of Proclamation 1017, the Philippine National Police, through its spokesman, has said that the police was just following orders. This line of defense was first employed during the Nuremberg Trials. Called the Nuremberg Defense, wherein the primary reasoning is that a soldier is just following orders and should not be held responsible for such acts.

Mr. Samuel Pagdilao, PNP spokesman, said “These were not done by the PNP to its liking. We were just following the proclamation.” Which means one thing – the PNP is now passing the buck to the Fortress by the Pasig. And that is why Mr. Eduardo Nachura and his men are studying whether to appeal David v. Ermita, since obviously, the problem will fall in the laps of Gloria Arroyo. I see Nachura’s action as looking for an escape route for Arroyo.

Also, Mr. Vidal Querol, head of NCR police, was interviewed at ANC. He was trying to advance another escape route by trying to point out that the arrests of Randolf David and Ronald Llamas on February 24, 2006, were legal and were made because of violations of Batas Pambansa 880, the subject of another SC decision Bayan v. Ermita. Let me quote the ABS-CBN News:

“Kapag binasa nating mabuti ‘yan [SC ruling] ang sinasabi ay bawal po ang pag-aresto kung hindi ang dahilan ay lawless violence, invasion, rebellion, and violation of Batas Pambansa 880 (If we read the ruling properly, it says that it is prohibited to conduct arrests unless there is lawless violence, invasion, rebellion and violation of Batas Pambansa 880),” he said.

Mr. Querol is now equating lawless violence with violations of BP880. I will leave that for lawyers to debate on. But the SC has already stated that the arrests of David and Llamas were illegal and unconstitutional. Let me quote the decision:

In the Brief Account submitted by petitioner David, certain facts are established: first, he was arrested without warrant; second, the PNP operatives arrested him on the basis of PP 1017; third, he was brought at Camp Karingal, Quezon City where he was fingerprinted, photographed and booked like a criminal suspect; fourth, he was treated brusquely by policemen who “held his head and tried to push him” inside an unmarked car; fifth, he was charged with Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang No. 880 and Inciting to Sedition; sixth, he was detained for seven (7) hours; and seventh, he was eventually released for insufficiency of evidence.
xxx
On the basis of the relevant and uncontested facts narrated earlier, it is also pristine clear that (1) the warrantless arrest of petitioners Randolf S. David and Ronald Llamas; (2) the dispersal of the rallies and warrantless arrest of the KMU and NAFLU-KMU members; (3) the imposition of standards on media or any prior restraint on the press; and (4) the warrantless search of the Tribune offices and the whimsical seizures of some articles for publication and other materials, are not authorized by the Constitution, the law and jurisprudence. Not even by the valid provisions of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5.
xxx
The warrantless arrest of Randolf S. David and Ronald Llamas; the dispersal and warrantless arrest of the KMU and NAFLU-KMU members during their rallies, in the absence of proof that these petitioners were committing acts constituting lawless violence, invasion or rebellion and violating BP 880; the imposition of standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press, as well as the warrantless search of the Tribune offices and whimsical seizure of its articles for publication and other materials, are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Mr. Querol is effectively saying that the SC was wrong. I dare say that he was spewing those words to defend the police from prosecution and probable conviction on violations of human rights. I challenge Mr. Querol to express his opinion through the Solicitor General in an appeal to the Supreme Court, instead of going to the media trying to convince people through subterfuge.

Another defense, as advanced by Mr. Pagdilao, is that the police acted in good faith and its actions were done in “prudent and scrupulous observance” of the rule of law and human rights, as quoted in INQ7.net. Rule of law? Scrupulous observance of human rights? Didn’t the Supreme Court just said that the acts of the police during Proc. 1017 were unconstitutional? I think a thorough retraining of the entire PNP is needed.

(Personally, I am happy I was not in the shoes of Ricky Carandang when he was interviewing Querol. It’s hard to restrain oneself when hearing someone spewing lies with a straight face. BTW, Mr. Carandang has not posted in a while, thus you will not see any post on his home page.)

Should we expect heads to roll? Should we expect fall guys to be paraded? Nope. Even the Fortress by the Pasig was not sorry about the issue.

---

I find it lamentable that the lawyers of the petitioners in David v. Arroyo did not even contest the facts that the government specified that lead to the issuance of Proc. 1017. This made the Supreme Court uphold the proclamation. That’s what the petitioner’s lawyers should explain. Atty. Aceron lamented this fact.

Have just began reading the decision. By just reading the statement of facts you would know how the Court had decided. This, for me, is the deciding point:

During the oral arguments held on March 7, 2006, the Solicitor General specified the facts leading to the suance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5. Significantly, there was no refutation from petitioners’ counsels. (Emphasis made by the Court)

And thus, the Court says:

Petitioners failed to show that President Arroyo’s exercise of the calling-out power, by issuing PP 1017, is totally bereft of factual basis. A reading of the Solicitor General’s Consolidated Comment and Memorandum shows a detailed narration of the events leading to the issuance of PP 1017, with supporting reports forming part of the records. Mentioned are the escape of the Magdalo Group, their audacious threat of the Magdalo D-Day, the defections in the military, particularly in the Philippine Marines, and the reproving statements from the communist leaders. There was also the Minutes of the Intelligence Report and Security Group of the Philippine Army showing the growing alliance between the NPA and the military. Petitioners presented nothing to refute such events. Thus, absent any contrary allegations, the Court is convinced that the President was justified in issuing PP 1017 calling for military aid.

The SC has decided that Proc. 1017 was constitutional pertaining to its provisions calling on the police and the military to prevent or suppress violence. Parts of the said proclamation calling on the military to enforce laws not related to lawless violence as well as decrees promulgated by the President are deemed unconstitutional.

WHEREFORE, the Petitions are partly granted. The Court rules that PP 1017 is CONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it constitutes a call by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence. However, the provisions of PP 1017 commanding the AFP to enforce laws not related to lawless violence, as well as decrees promulgated by the President, are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. In addition, the provision in PP 1017 declaring national emergency under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution is CONSTITUTIONAL, but such declaration does not authorize the President to take over privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest without prior legislation.

G.O. No. 5 is CONSTITUTIONAL since it provides a standard by which the AFP and the PNP should implement PP 1017, i.e. whatever is “necessary and appropriate actions and measures to suppress and prevent acts of lawless violence.” Considering that “acts of terrorism” have not yet been defined and made punishable by the Legislature, such portion of G.O. No. 5 is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The warrantless arrest of Randolf S. David and Ronald Llamas; the dispersal and warrantless arrest of the KMU and NAFLU-KMU members during their rallies, in the absence of proof that these petitioners were committing acts constituting lawless violence, invasion or rebellion and violating BP 880; the imposition of standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press, as well as the warrantless search of the Tribune offices and whimsical seizure of its articles for publication and other materials, are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

As usual, the decision ended with partial granting of petitions, as the Court did with the other issues. Solomonic? Yeah. Arroyo et al getting a slap in the wrists – using marshmallow sticks.

In today’s issue of the Inquirer, Manuel Quezon III ended his column:

And yet, the overwhelming number of our people stubbornly insist on political solutions to economic and social problems: the ballot remains the magic bullet. For its adherence to this view, the public is portrayed as either selfish, or silly, or even suicidal. But what if the people are right? And those insisting on the other solutions are wrong? As Rizal asked, what then?

What then, indeed? Unfortunately, the magic bullet called ballot has long lost its magic. It is laudable that the people believe in the power of the ballot, of choice. However, the reality of the times shows that this belief – that the people has a choice – has long been subverted several ways, with the people always being the loser.

One, the case of the 2004 elections shows that anyone who has the machinery and the guts (or kapal ng mukha, if you’re inclined to call it as such) can manipulate the outcome of the electoral process, subverting the choice of the people. And with the system of electoral protest/appeal stacked in favor of the so-called winner, the electoral system has become a joke of a democratic process. What then should the people, whose choices were not heard, should do?

Two, the gullibility and susceptibility of the people to guns, goons, and gold – the 3Gs of elections – partially negates the view that an election is the voice of the people. That the people can easily be influenced to choose against their own will, or maybe because of their indifference, make the elections lose its credibility. What then?

It has now become a myth, the power of the ballot.

What then, is the solution to this injustice? Probably none, unless the people themselves realize that clinging to ideas that are clearly and obviously not working is not the solution to their problems. They choose to live in this delusion. I now pose this question: what if the people is wrong? What then?

The MMDA’s latest gimmick, Pink Cloth, takes off, according to INQ7. Yeah, it took off and crash-landed immediately.

Early last night I was witness to the Pinoy’s penchant for rule-breaking. You can’t blame the MMDA for resorting to pink gimmicks, from pink fences and now, pink clothes. These gimmicks are immutable signs of the lack of discipline in our part. You see, the MMDA has to erect pink fences just to remind drivers and commuters where to load and unload. However, we Filipinos are known on hurdling obstacles, and in this case, literally.

Last night after training, infront of the bus bays at Farmers Plaza, I saw these MMDA men carrying aluminum poles, with pink cloth in them, plus a bell. The commuters enter the lane assigned for a certain bus route. Great idea. So when a bus overstays its welcome, the MMDA man just lowers the pole at the lane exit, a flimsy way to stop riders from getting in on the bus. Also, the buses can no longer take passengers on the stop that is not assigned to their route.

The ideas were good. It’s just that there’s no stopping Pinoys from their rulebreaking habit. I get the idea why, since complying to the laws does not pay. You’ll see why.

Now, about the pink cloth. This plan failed. Let me describe the situation. The bus bay at Farmers is divided into two lanes. If you are facing EDSA North, on your right side is the lane assigned to the routes going Sta. Maria in Bulacan, Monumento, UE-Letre, Malanday/Marilao. On the middle, Fairview, Novaliches. The outermost left lane is free-for-all, but buses cannot load and unload passengers on that lane. Now, in the right lane, the exits are as follows (still facing EDSA North): Angat/Sta. Maria, Malanday/Monumento, exit to the next lane, UE-Letre/Monumento. To circumvent the ideas of MMDA, you can do two things. One, if you are bound to UE-Letre, line up in the Sta. Maria or Malanday exits. Buses, driven by typical Pinoy bus drivers, will stop on all exits to get passengers. So when the bus gets on its proper exit, the bus is full. Second, stay at the exit going to the middle lane. When the bus stops at the Malanday exit, get on the road and take the bus.

The passenger lanes are even divided into two – aircon and ordinary bus exits. A third way of circumventing rules – line up on the lane that has the lesser people; whether you will take an aircon or ordinary bus doesn’t matter.

So imagine what happened to me last night. It took me 30 minutes before I got in a bus. Since I wanted to take an aircon bus, I lined up on the aircon bus lane of the first UE-Letre bus stop. In horror, then rage, I saw UE-Letre buses loading at the bus stop assigned for Sta. Maria-bound buses! When those buses reached where I am, they were already full (and I won’t pay seventeen pesos to stand up in a packed bus). And when UE-Letre ordinary buses arrived, people lined up at the aircon lane boarded. All I could do last night was shake my head. Shook my head a lot of times.

The Pinoys don’t have the concept of lining up – when someone is ahead of you, you line up at his back (that’s the idea). But no, that’s not the Pinoy way – if you can get ahead of the queue, go for it! And last night I got to observe this Pinoy talent in practice. Unfortunately, most of those who did it were women.

The MMDA men’s actions (or I mean inaction) didn’t help. Laws and rules are useless if implementors of these cannot, do not, and will not implement them. Ideally there should be one MMDA man for each exit, and two more to tell bus drivers to move on. Last night, you could see their ineptness. No one was guarding the exit to the middle lane. They allowed buses to load at exits not assigned to these buses. Though I can’t blame these men, with emasculated powers to enforce these rules. So when the people openly defy their orders, what could the Blue Boys do?

And it saddens me to see these people openly defying the laws, the rules. Is lack of discipline, the lack of respect to rules, endemic to the Filipino nature? Is it an inseparable part of its character? Is it going to be part of our national identity?

I think it is not endemic to our nature, nor it is a part of our character. I have heard of amusing (maybe, not amusing at all) stories of rulebreakers becoming stickler to rules when abroad. My uncle is an example. He had already migrated to the United States, courtesy of his mother. He was a typical Pinoy – throws cigarrette butts anywhere, spits anywhere, crosses at the dangerous parts of the streets, inconsiderate driver – you know the drill. Imagine our shock when he came back here for a visit. He even told us to cross the street when the lights are red.

Everyone else is doing it, why can’t I? That’s the name of my co-worker’s blog, which was named one of the sexiest Pinay bloggers and who is due to leave our company. (Just plugging her blog. Go read it.) Anyway, I think that’s the usual justification that we Pinoys say when we break rules. I realized that last night. You see, being compliant to the laws and rules does not pay; see what happened to me last night. I could have transferred to the Sta. Maria/Malanday exits, and got home early. I could have stayed at the exit going to the middle lane, and took a bus there. But no, I chose to follow the rules, and see what it caused me.

And sometimes we view rules as impediments to our goals. These pink fences impedes our desire to get home early. Elections impede our desire to be in power. So what do we do? We short-circuit the process, we break or bend the rules to our advantage.

These pink fences, these pink clothes, these number schemes – these are signs that we Filipinos cannot be trusted in following rules. The rules are there to govern our behavior, to honor the rights of others. It is part of our social contract. And acting as if there are no rules is a sign of a sick mind. These pink fences, these pink clothes -they are signs that we are a sick country, a sick people. We are in need of healing. Badly.

Update: Read the decision (written by Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna) here.

These two weeks are rather frustrating for the Arroyo administration. (Or is it?)

ABS-CBN News has just reported that the Supreme Court, in a 13-0 decision, has declared the calibrated preemptive response policy as null and void. INQ7 has reported that the SC has directed the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) to implement Section 15 of Batas Pambansa 880, which calls for local government to declare freedom parks.

The SC has given heads of cities and municipalities 30 days or else all parks will become freedom parks.

The score then stands at 2-1. (For Arroyo: one for National ID, 0.5 for EO464, and 0.5 for BP880. Against her: 0.5 for EO464, and 0.5 on CPR. I split the score on EO 464 and BP880/CPR.) Next for decision are the petitions against Proclamation 1017.

Expect Mike Arroyo to once again say “It has done its purpose”.

The SC should rule on 1017 soon; issuing its decision before May 1 is the best-case scenario. Why? Remember that Proclamation 1017 was issued last February 24, 2006, the 20th anniversary of EDSA1, on the pretext that there was an aborted coup. All rally permits were revoked, rallies were dispersed, some were arrested, a newspaper office was raided. And now, with the so-called Oplan 4G, another coup/destabilization effort is supposedly scheduled on May 1, in time for the usual Labor Day protest rallies. Arroyo will just issue a similar proclamation to suppress all these rallies if the 1017 issue remains unresolved by that time, since there is nothing to deter her from doing so.

It seems my claim that the SC will drag its feet on these cases were wrong. I even complained that this SC is beholden to Arroyo, given the Arroyo propensity to tell her detractors to sue her. I was wrong. The gameplan, really, was to give her space, so that the heat generated by her political woes would subside. They knew beforehand that what they were doing were illegal. They just need the time and space. And they got them.

---

The administration and its minions will now be hard pressed to identify freedom parks, and I presume they will choose small parks to designate. For example, Manila is a congested city, what are its options? Liwasang Bonifacio, Plaza Miranda, Plaza Lacson, Bonifacio Shrine in City Hall. Would Quezon City declare the People Power Monument as a Freedom Park? Will Pasig declare the EDSA Shrine as a freedom park? (Fat chance, the Catholic Church owns the land.) The decision lamented the fact that no freedom park exists except for Cebu’s Fuente Osmeña:

If this is so (referring to the non-compliance on Section 15), the degree of observance of B.P. No. 880’s mandate that every city and municipality set aside a freedom park within six months from its effectivity in 1985, or 20 years ago, would be pathetic and regrettable. The matter appears to have been taken for granted amidst the swell of freedom that rose from the peaceful revolution of 1986.

Also, BP 880 was declared in toto as constitutional. I think the only questionable part of that Marcos law is Section 6, which was abused by Lito Atienza. By not acting on the application, the law specifies that the application is deemed approved. The police interpreted it otherwise – City Hall not acting on an application is an outright denial of that application. The burden of proof that an application has been denied now lies on the authorities:

Furthermore, there is need to address the situation adverted to by petitioners where mayors do not act on applications for a permit and when the police demand a permit and the rallyists could not produce one, the rally is immediately dispersed. In such a situation, as a necessary consequence and part of maximum tolerance, rallyists who can show the police an application duly filed on a given date can, after two days from said date, rally in accordance with their application without the need to show a permit, the grant of the permit being then presumed under the law, and it will be the burden of the authorities to show that there has been a denial of the application, in which case the rally may be peacefully dispersed following the procedure of maximum tolerance prescribed by the law.

And there is also Section 12, calling for peaceful dispersal of rallies without permits. How can there be peaceful dispersal? What if the rallyists refuse to heed the calls of police to disperse? The police has no choice but to employ force; would you call that peaceful? And take note of the provision:

Sec. 12. Dispersal of public assembly without permit. – When the public assembly is held without a permit where a permit is required, the said public assembly may be peacefully dispersed. (Emphasis mine)

That provision speaks a lot. The government may or may not disperse rallies without permits. MAY. Not SHALL. On all instances, this government had chosen to disperse rallyist, according to law. It even used everything that was forbidden by the maximum tolerance provisions (Sections 3c, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13). The question now is this: assuming that a rally has no permit, and the police has to disperse it, do the provisions of Sections 9, 10, 11 and 13 still apply?

In a speech before the graduating class of UP School of Economics, PCIJ’s Sheila Coronel spoke about poverty, the problems of the political system, and the possible explosion of the social volcano. She even said that her generation had failed, and it is the turn of the generation of the graduating class:

Ultimately, this means forging a new social compact, one built no longer on the mutual, if unevenly distributed, benefits of a system based on patronage and spoils. We need a social contract that is premised on the right of every citizen to the fundamentals of a decent life and on a more equitable sharing of the wealth our country produces.

This is your task now. The generations before you — including mine, which reached adulthood in the 1980s, at the dawn of people power — have failed. I am probably the same generation as your parents. Now in the throes of middle age, my generation has realized that many of our great hopes about this country have been frustrated, our big dreams of reform have turned to dust. While Edsa 1 is the defining experience of our lives and we will always be proud that we took part in restoring freedom, we have also failed to build a just and equitable society. That undertaking is yours. And as economists trained in the country’s premier university you are uniquely placed to play a reforming and nation building role. The UP School of Economics has a tradition for critical and innovative thought. For the past 20 years, it has upset presidents with its uncompromising analyses of our country’s economic problems. You are the bearers of this tradition.

Unlike her, though, I am not optimistic. For the example that our generation had shown to them had taught them to be apathetic, cynical, and indifferent. Yet, as Confucius had said, “A youth is to be regarded with respect. How do you know that his future will not be equal to our present?” I am willing to be surprised, but the indications are not good.