www.soriano-ph.com

I join our countrymen and the world in mourning the passing of Tita Cory. I learned about her death while I was in Naga City. And when I came back last night after a grueling land trip to Manila, I and my son, Jimbo, did not waste any time in paying our last respect for her at La Salle Greenhills.

Many great things have been said about Tita Cory and she truly deserves all the accolade.

But I love Tita Cory because she made us believe that what it takes to be a great leader and human being is neither education nor experience nor brilliance, just plain and simple sincerity, honesty, integrity, modesty, faith and the fortitude to rise above difficult circumstances – qualities that are rare these days and you can hardly find in any of our present day leaders.

I love Tita Cory because she made sure that we, our children, and hopefully the next generation enjoy the blessings of freedom under a regime of democracy. They say that absolute power corrupts but Tita Cory did not succumb to the temptation, when it was very convenient for her to do so. Her presidency had its own share of weaknesses but no one can deny that she served us well by making sure that every Filipino enjoy the fruits of liberty.

And I love Tita Cory because she distinctly made me proud to be a Filipino. The phenomenal and world-acclaimed People Power of 1986 was bloodless and peaceful simply because Tita Cory was its icon, its inspiration, its moving spirit. And I now reminisce that part of my life circa 1983-1986 with great pleasure which I want my children to cherish and understand well.

I dare say that Ninoy’s life and death was actually meant by God to prepare Tita Cory to be our own Joan of Arc. God must be on our side for giving us Tita Cory.

“I would rather die a meaningful death than to live a meaningless life”, Tita Cory once said.  You did, Tita Cory.

“I hope that history will judge me as favorably as our people still regard me, because, as God is my witness, I honestly did the best I could. No more can be asked of any man”, Tita Cory said in her last SONA.  We know you did, Tita Cory.

With your death, may the hopes of the Filipino people live again by tying that yellow ribbon ’round the old oak tree.

Thank you Tita Cory. Thank you. Farewell.

- – - – - – - – - – - – -

Below is a song composed by my best friend, Corazon Guidote, arranged by Roy Del Valle, performed by Lisa Del Valle and photoshow assembled by Mike Reyes.

This is under  CC-BY-NC-ND Philippine License 3.0

LINK: ‘Note Verbale’, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Times) – 24 February 2008 Issue

Tomorrow is the 22nd anniversary of the so-called ‘people power 1’ that toppled the authoritarian regime of former president Ferdinand E. Marcos and brought the country from a brief revolutionary regime to a constitutional democracy. Certainly, it was a fine moment in human history that the country can be proud of.

More than seven years ago, the strong political clamor to remove former president Joseph E. Estrada on charges of corruption gave rise to ‘people power 2’. Following a constitutionally-defined succession in which the Supreme Court gave its stamp of approval, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo assumed the post of chief executive.

While both versions of people power are being held in high esteem by the international community for the bloodless takeover of political regimes, there is no dispute that they would have not succeeded without military intervention. People power 1 and 2 were peaceful and bloodless because the top guns of the military hierarchy chose to shift loyalties to a new regime.

The sad reality is that no amount of public expression and demonstration of protest and condemnation even by a majority of the citizenry would topple a political regime without military intervention. Political leaders are naturally driven by the desire to preserve authority and power until all the avenues are closed, which only the armed forces could bring about.

Take the case of the ensuing ‘people power 3’ to restore the Estrada presidency. It failed not because it had no popular support, as in fact, Estrada obtained the most convincing and strongest mandate of the electorate in the country’s history when he got elected to the office. It failed because former president Estrada no longer had the organized support of the military generals.

In the current political controversy hounding the administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the shifting of loyalties of the military hierarchy seems close to impossible. The commander-in-chief is astute enough to make the military leadership tow her line. Should the disgruntled junior officers in the military establishment decide to take matters in their hands, ‘people power 4’ would certainly be bloody and does not deserve to be called one. It would either be a rebellion, a mutiny or a coup d’etat.

The only constitutional mechanism to replace a president who betrayed public trust is the process of impeachment. But then again, this political process would not have any chance to even take off because of the president’s political dominance of the House of Representatives.

The church is calling for a ‘communal action’ or for a more meaningful or a new brand of ‘people power’ whatever that means. Certainly, street demonstrations, prayer rallies, and similar expressions of public protests would not bring about a new brand of ‘people power 4’ and make President Arroyo give up her office, even if the cardinals and the bishops are able to physically gather a million Filipinos in Luneta to call for her resignation.  The minions of the president have mastered so well the Machiavellian art of ‘divide and rule’.

For people power 4 to succeed in the same context as people power 1 and 2, but without the usual military interference, there must be some collective political will on the part of Filipinos to show that they are the sovereign authority. This could be done perhaps by momentarily withholding government support in the form of taxes, or by exercising the framework of people’s initiative to constitutionally shorten the term of the incumbent president, or a mass resignation or leave of absence of government servants who still upholds morality in public service. All these would be done only to put pressure to the president to resign and allow the constitutional processes to take shape. But obviously these are arduous paths to take.

In the meantime, a long-drawn-out political deadlock is in the offing. This means some setback in the economy and some political instability and maneuverings here and there. The Filipino people need to sacrifice more in the ensuing tug-of-war because whoever of the opposing camps blinks first loses the game.

If there is still a chance for ‘people power 4’, it should be within the constitutional spirit that sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. Otherwise, people power 4 could be tragic.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 6 May 2007 Issue

Edmund Burke, noted British political theorist in the eighteenth century, said: “Three Estates in Parliament; but in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth estate more important far than they all.”

On this Burke’s Fourth Estate, British writer and historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his 1841 book On Heroes and Hero Worship further wrote: “It is not a figure of speech, or a witty saying; it is a literal fact, — very momentous to us in these times. Literature is our Parliament too. Printing, which comes necessarily out of Writing, I say often, is equivalent to Democracy: invent Writing, Democracy is inevitable. Writing brings Printing; brings universal everyday extempore Printing, as we see at present. Whoever can speak, speaking now to the whole nation, becomes a power, a branch of government, with inalienable weight in law-making, in all acts of authority.”

The Fourth Estate refers to the public press, the generic term that adverts to journalists and media organizations obtaining and gathering information for public dissemination.

Historically, public press is not free.

Not long after the invention of the printing press, Pope Alexander VI issued a notice in 1501 that required printers to submit a copy of printed matters to church authorities before publication under pain of fines and excommunication.

In 1534, the English monarchy also issued a royal proclamation that required prepublication licensing, a form of censorship that became more inclined to suppress political criticisms than religious heresy. English poet John Milton opposed and attacked this policy of prior restraint in his 1644 work Areopagitica and called on parliament to suppress offensive publications only after their appearance if necessary. Although it took at least half a century before the licensing and censorship laws were abolished, Milton’s advocacy eventually became the cornerstone of present-day concept of press freedom.

In the United States, the development of press freedom that was later enshrined in its Constitution as the First Amendment is generally attributed to the celebrated seditious libel prosecution of New York journalist, John Peter Zenger, in 1735 for publishing political attacks on William Cosby, then governor of New York. His lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, argued that contrary to established English law, there was no libel in publishing the truth. Zenger was acquitted.

Democracy would lose all its sense without the freedom of the press. To ensure that the press is free means empowering the people to be informed at all times on state and global affairs, to make informed judgment on matters that affect their lives as citizens and as a member of society, to keep government and their political leaders constantly accountable for their actions and performance, and to satisfy their insatiable desire for knowledge and quests for truth.

Whatever argument against press freedom in the context of bad, irresponsible or seditious press to justify prior restraint, censorship or control of mass media is an insult to human intelligence and discernment. No individual or group of individuals can lay exclusive claim or has even the monopoly to dictate what people should or should not know or substitute one’s judgment what should be or should not be expressed.  Every story, every content, every news would always stand and fall based on their merits because man is a rational being.

It is true that mass media is so powerful that it is also a convenient haven for propaganda, lies, fabrications, immorality or undue influence. It is for this reason that unscrupulous persons and institutions would exert every attempt and effort to control it because in the natural scheme of things in a free and vibrant press, they would be marginalized and lose altogether their malicious designs.

The world has yet to see a nation oppressed because of press freedom. But almost always histories of oppression start with the muscling of the Fourth Estate.

Those who are afraid of press freedom actually fear for themselves.

PUBLISHED: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) – 17 December 2006 Issue

After the defeat of the people’s initiative in the hands of the magistrates of the Supreme Court, the gung-ho minions of Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. at the House of Representatives practically took advantage of their number in the majority coalition to push for the amendment or revision of the Constitution through a confutative constituent assembly.

From the theoretical standpoint, the move seems justified from the context of a democratic framework. Firstly, congressmen are supposedly the direct representative and the voice of the people in state affairs and governance. Secondly, the principle of ‘majority rule’ has always been the decisive factor in determining the popular will in a democracy.

Representative Douglas Cagas of Davao del Sur captured this sense during the marathon con-ass sessions in reaction to the protestations of spectators when he said for the record: “The point is that we’re lawmakers, and you’re not.” x x x x “Mr. Speaker, before we vote, there will always be differing opinions… That is accorded in a democracy [but] let us exercise our numbers. After all, these debates have been done before,”

But just like a breeze of fresh air these concepts of representation and the rule of majority may be rendered impure by personal and vested interests of the elected representatives.

An elected represented may conveniently disregard the will of his constituency and substitute it with his own and still invoke that his stand on public issues is the voice of the people. What is worse is when the stand is hidden as always under the cloak of promoting the national interest.

The majority of the representatives may patiently allow the voices of dissent to be heard but would never care to listen at all at the end of the day knowing fully well that the die is cast anyway. What is worse is when established rules and precedents are twisted to accomplish the objective and still invoke constitutional adherence and the rule of law.

Christian Monsod, one of the framers of the present Constitution, said that it is precisely for the reason that the 1986 Constitutional Commission adopted the principle that “(T)he Philippines is a democratic and republican state.” The insertion of the word ‘democratic’ is to put emphasis on the active and direct role of the people in the life of the nation.

To boost its arguments for a judicial consideration of the people’s initiative, Sigaw ng Bayan argued along the same line that the Supreme Court should not disregard the signatures of more than six million Filipinos desiring charter change. But where is the popular clamor of those who supposedly signed the petition for people’s initiative now that all moves to change the constitution are dead? 

Even before the people could gather today in a prayer rally in Luneta organized by religious groups and civil society, the majority coalition of Speaker Jose de Venecia in the House of Representatives and President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo had already declared the death of their constitutional initiatives at this time. It could be an effort to thwart the political storm of a people power or to show sensitivity to the popular will or both.  Whatever is the reason is moot.

As the Filipino people gather today in prayer to defend constitutional democracy in this country, the following exhortation from Thomas Jefferson, former US President and principal author of his nation’s Declaration of Independence, sometime in 1810 may be in point:

“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self- preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”