QUEZONIAN CONTEXTS FOR OUR TIME

“I WOULD rather have a country run like hell by Filipinos than a country run like heaven by the Americans, because however bad a Filipino government might be, we can always change it.” Quezon the movie adopted another version of that quote, which ends with "because no matter how bad, a Filipino government might be improved." In our time, those two versions would differ significantly.

THE former. The former could be used to refer to a US-modeled system of government with a strong president under a strongly-representative democracy CHANGED IN THE FUTURE, after repeated demonstrations of failure, to a more democratic parliamentary form perhaps, and/or to one under a more participatory democracy or quasi-direct democracy like that of Switzerland. The word "can" is optimistic towards Filipinos' capacity to create or instigate or demand such a transition or transformation. The latter. The latter version of the quote (with "might") is less positive, but perhaps more realistic, as if cognizant of the fact that we have always had a policy of maintaining ignorance and propaganda-vulnerability in our country's overwhelming majority (simply via our education system that refuses to be fully socialized and takes pride in a hierarchism of trainings). But although the latter is realistic, almost implying a pessimism or as if subtly preaching the impossibility of hoping, it is however ignorant of the fact that a government molded through a plutocratic model of fake democracy WILL NEVER ALLOW ITSELF TO BE "IMPROVED". Or is it pessimistic precisely because of the near-impossibility of seeking improvements within it?

WHICH version do you prefer? At the risk of sounding like a Macchiavellian inciter of armed rebellion, I'd say that such a plutocratic/kleptocratic government system that has allowed so much power among its wielders will indeed never allow a more open government, or share legislative power with the people through truly-useful initiatives, and that the only time it will allow these to encroach into the system is when a revolution occurs that would demand the upending of those eternal refusals. As an open government and participatory democracy advocate I'll risk stating that statement bordering on Macchiavellian or otherwise Marxist pessimism, however, knowing full well that Filipinos currently want to upend our current system that continues to refuse significant changes only through the lens of either communism or Islamism, both of which our plutocracy has been able to keep at bay. Filipinos will never go to war against our eternally corrupt plutocracy in the name of open government or a quasi-direct democracy. . . . Never. Although they might be able to, someday. Can change. Might improve. Two different worlds in a parallel universe.

Salamat, Ma'am VP Leni Robredo, for your pioneering effort

 

Photo from The Straits Times

Ma'am VP Leni Robredo, thank you for introducing three concepts new to Philippine politics when you brought them out as the leading items in your political platform during your presidential candidacy campaign: open government, participatory democracy, and a job guarantee policy.

It may not yet be the time for the Filipino people to have them, but you will be remembered as the only presidential candidate in Philippine history (perhaps in contemporary world history) to have had the will to advocate them and become so popular with the people with your introduction of them.

May the next presidential candidate to advocate for them finally succeed after your pioneering effort. [S / -I]

Diagram by Roberto Triviño uploaded to ResearchGate

THE LUMPENBOURGEOISIE’S METHOD IS TO DIVIDE US ON ISSUES OTHER THAN WHAT THE LUMPENBOURGEOISIE HAVE THEIR EYES ON TO IMPOSE ON ALL OF US

photo from http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/571910/news/specialreports/scenes-from-president-rodrigo-duterte-s-inauguration

1. On Behalf of Inang Bayan Kuno

PUTANG INA MO, China, hanggang ngayon di ka pa rin nag-aapologize sa pekeng rice na pinasok mo sa amin, sa mga illegal drugs na pinapadala mo rito sa Opium War by Shabu ninyo laban sa amin, sa pag-okupa mo ng Scarborough Shoal hanggang sa mga oras na ito, sa mga fraudulent loans ng mga pulitiko namin na inasikaso mo, sa dumping mo ng kung anu-anong shady products sa buong mundo, at marami pang iba, . . . China, I wish you see hell!!!!!

    Pero teka, teka, teka, mali yata ang script na binabasa ko. Dapat pala, kung sang-ayon tayo sa script ng pamahalaan ni Rodrigo Duterte, ang Amerika ang hinihingan natin ng apology saaaa . . . let’s see . . . ah, alam ko na . . . sa atrocities nito sa Bud Dajo noong taong 1906. So sige, heto na: Amerika, tang-ina mo ka, padala ka ng padala ng aid pero di ka pa rin nag-aapologize sa Bud Dajo, tang ina at ama mo rin ka! Go to hell!

    Ok na ba yon? Yey! Rak en rol!

2. An "I" Persona

KUNG IHAHAMBING MO ang Rodrigo Duterte script na ito sa, say, Noynoy Aquino script o kahit sa Fidel Ramos script noon, makikita rin natin na ang Rodrigo Duterte script ay karaniwa’y isang “I” persona script, as against the former presidents’ conventionally “we” personae scripts. But of course we can argue that, in effect, all presidential scripts, whether presented in the ‘I’ mode or in the ‘we’ mode, are all largely dictatorial products of the dictatorial presidential system, and are thus all “I” persona scripts at the end of the day (dictating the president’s will upon the nation through either threat of violence, threat of being denied funding, or threat of legalist suit).

    So one could say that Duterte’s “I”-based script is simply more honest, or vulgarly forward, if you will, about it. Or simply more cognizant of the fact that presidential personae are largely all ultimate products of the big “I” hype manufactured by the star system that defines the presidential system as the most star system-reliant form of representative democracy. Duterte’s cognizance and embrace of that privilege now wallows in the very depth of the hype, or at the summit of it, almost as if to test its limits.

    Thus Rodrigo Duterte is now wont to utter such lines as "I might break up with America" or "I might go to China and Russia instead" and "I only want to be at peace with everybody, doing business with everybody, and no quarrels with anybody" in reference to a desire for "an independent foreign policy” for the Philippines. And as if to hide the kingly grandiosity in these pronouncements, at one of his speeches for his police camp audience (as he’s been wont to visit the police camps of the country since day 1), he recently said, referring to the “insulting” United States and European governments’ criticism of his war on drugs, "when you insult the President of the Republic of the Philippines you also insult the Filipino people." Really?

    I am beginning to wonder if all this honesty from the “I” persona of Duterte’s script also means that Rodrigo Duterte now regards himself as independent of the Filipino people's opinion, post-election, so independent in fact as to be able to unilaterally decide on such things as what happens to the Philippines (which he now seems to consider as his) and the Filipino people (whose brains he seems to now consider as connected to his, irrespective of their current individual desires). The thought of referenda on anything major be damned, and fuck even a bit of decrease on his still-high approval rating, and a spit of phlegm perhaps on thoughts of a coup that might subsequently try him for treason. His government has said it not a few times: he was elected by a large majority of the Filipino people, which by his understanding gave him the license (given by that large majority), or prior approval, to do whatever he announced he’d do during the campaign and things he intends to do now and henceforward, ostensibly all for the betterment of the Filipino nation that he loves (often completing such a pronouncement of love with a gesture of touching the flag behind him on a stage in a visited police camp somewhere). But this should not be a surprising proposition, given that that’s precisely the attitude that presidential systems and presidentialism expect presidents to don, post-election.

3. Braggadoccio

AND SO IT was no surprise to read that report wherein the President claimed that the Philippines can survive without foreign aid, referring to aid we have received mainly from the United States and Japan.

    Well, unang-una, there's no such thing as aid na walang kapalit (which kapalit might take the form of export or import concessions); madalas din ang aid ay synonym for a loan/debt.

    Pangalawa, this is total bullshit from a government that has been in close contact with the AIIB from day 1.

    Otherwise, this almost sounds like taunting Western banks and the ADB to leave us, I suspect as per instructions from AIIB officers whose institution must be eager to send its people in droves to our archipelago in the way a Russian missile system triumphantly entered Syria last month.

    My friend Hubert Posadas, a security consultant, commented on a post of mine on Facebook on this subject and wrote: “There will be a trade-off, and it will work if we are a country united. However, he could have done it more smoothly, without creating overt tension and hostility in a growingly threatening climate. In a country rich with natural resources, we have become addicted to aid, which has only perpetuated our being a natural resource-rich country with a poor populace, a country exporting natural resources without added value and buying it back as finished products we could have created ourselves (thus a country importing produce we can actually produce on our own), a country furthermore exporting fathers and mothers to become slaves abroad and leaving a generation of kids without guidance in return for material goods that addle our children's brains. . . . We are addicted to aid to the point that we do not learn to manage what we have for our collective good, never questioning businesses that perpetuate this cycle where only the few oligarchs and industrialists prosper. We never question the control that AID and Borrowing creates for the Lendor, believing in the institutions that create the machinery that exploit us, how the World Bank loans us on paper money they never really give as we hire their contractors and pay their services with siphoned resources. We never understand our complicity in the deaths of other civilians around the world that suffer a war for pretended causes just because they have resources our big brother wants. We have to ween ourselves from these addictions.”

I WON’T COMMENT on my friend Hubert’s trust and optimism towards the Duterte thrust towards China away from the West, if that’s what he meant by his first sentence, nor would I comment on his preference for a more statesman-like Duterte mouth (especially as I suspect it is all from a script suggested by the President’s targeted main creditor and possibly foreign election campaign donor, the AIIB), nor on his view of foreign aid as motivated by some blind addiction, if I got him correctly on that. But I definitely agree with much else that he wrote. Not because I believe that our leaders (national and local) have been treating foreign aid from a position of blind addiction, but because I believe that foreign aid (from whichever source) has always been that product peddled by foreign banking or governmental interests (of whatever nationality) to countries such as ours, where these in turn are received with warm welcome by these countries’ respective lumpenbourgeoisie-gone-wealthy.

    In fact, in the Philippines’ case, that state of affairs described above by my friend is all due to our having been through decades of being managed by elements of the lumpenbourgeoisie, a lumpenbourgeoisie whose instincts are naturally inclined to the enriching of themselves and the neglect of those they would pretend to serve. Here’s where I have qualms on any shift from West-based creditors to a China-based credit source: a pro-American lumpenbourgeoisie replaced by a pro-China lumpenbourgeoisie is not going to remove us from the shackles of conditions imposed by global banks (which banks also happen to be attached to governments with their attached conditions and impositions). And, worse, while you can shame Western banks when certain details about them are exposed, there's no shaming the AIIB (China's West Philippine Sea attitude is already an omen of what our relationship with our new creditors are going to look like).

    For as long as we are managed by this niche, this class, we are never going to be united, precisely because the elements in this niche (the lumpenbourgeoisie, now also interestingly containing elements from the Left) are, to repeat, naturally inclined to forever work for themselves and their factions in the guise of working for the nation. Being thus predisposed, they are likewise necessarily inclined to divide us, us who are easily duped into siding with the competing left-right-center factions of the lumpenbourgeoisie on various issues other than their lumpenbourgeoisie-ness. That is to say, we are led to debate and curse each other on distracting issues (or false flags) that hide the bigger issues that define their being lumpenbourgeois. We are divided the way TV viewers have been duped into joining either a kapamilya or kapuso or kapatid kind of TV channel brand loyalism, where we get deeply passionate about these myriad team affiliations for groupthink while missing what the lumpenbourgeois man did to our country for his and/or his faction’s enrichment and/or their personal ideas’ fulfillment.

A LIBERATING VIEW of a truer division has yet to be seen. It is a view within which we can glimpse and acknowledge how we are actually divided: into two separate nations, with the mob of the lumpenbourgeois-gone-wealthy on the one hand and then the rest of us on the other. When the time comes for us to awaken to the ideals of true democracy, let’s say participatory democracy wherein we become participants in decision-making, especially on matters pertaining to what happens to our country, only then can we say that we have attained the first step to independence, to a true freedom to choose among policy choices and not merely to be led into obeying the readymade choices of messiahs from the center, right or now-included-left of the lumpenbourgeois class with their foreign bank and superpower-big-brother preferences.

4. The problem with us, the people

NOTICE THAT I used the clause “time for us to awaken . . .” Now, is that day near at all? Hmm. Presently, there is reason to be pessimistic. For every time we start talking about “we,” we usually do not examine the we-ness in it or of it.

    The "we the people" phrase that we often use, for instance, is—true—often associated with democracy, more specifically representative democracy, almost never for an absent demand for some direct democracy. And there's the rub. The Philippine problem is that "we the Filipino people" have a political culture of always wanting to fight not for our personal or collective causes primarily but for politicians and such personalities, primarily. We would fight wars and die for these in the name of our politician or celebrity or sports team/athlete or favored TV channel. In that fact alone we can already say that "we the Filipino people" are still living in a kind of monarchic system akin to those before the occurrence of the events that led to the French Revolution.

    I agree, it is our poverty that has pinned us to this ignorance about the vicious cycle of exploitation by various actors. And so, perhaps, even in the attainment of true democracy, we might still need the miracle of being blessed with true leaders of the people, as against mere actors pretending to be leaders of the people. The French at the onset of the French Revolution were poor, but a culture of revolt was propagated by an intelligentsia that realized what was in this intelligentsia’s minds by making revolt the inevitable through the inculcation of that culture in the people, making the latter own this culture as if it derived from them, because, after all, it was for them and not for anyone else or for any political party seeking one-party rule. Unless, by some Marxist criticism, we propose that that culture may have actually derived from them, the masses, and was merely articulated by the intelligentsia.

    “When do we really start comprehending Rousseau and get away being puzzled by Montesquieu?”—wrote my Facebook friend, the banker and gallerist Remigio David. “For the time being, it's self destruction, defeat, disaster!”

    Expect to see light at the end of this tunnel of horrors soon, ser David. That's the optimist side of me speaking. :)

    “We shall celebrate when we bump into our own ‘Age of Reason’,” he wrote. “And when it does, let us hope it will endure despite the social contention. Little by little, our old world should crumble! I am an optimist like you, tu vois!”

    My friend Hubert P- came back with this: “Ah, but we are growing. All the institutions are being questioned, all crumbling. Catharsis begins with these kinds of event, helped by the dawning of awareness given insight by people like you. Frame the positive outcome and prescription and we’ll see that the change is already here with people like you. Know that it is hard to break old habits but easy to create new ones. That is why the revolution in psychology has been to steer away from talking about the past and more on reframing the positive outcome one wants to produce. Conditioned helplessness is the condition one finds oneself in by constantly complaining without looking for a solution. The mind works by seeing a proof of concept, not by discussing logics. The ability to train the mind to see a problem as a situation is the first skill in training the mind to find the solution. That is why we keep changing our leaders without success, because we only know what we do not want without knowing what we need to do. Most Filipinos think that a movement is to find a fault and ask others to join in agreeing to find fault and rally behind that negative statement. They are actually talking about a reaction, not a revolution. A revolution is a dynamic of change from one State to another. But without a clear scalable proof of concept, it never really becomes a movement. Change begins with a small group with clearly defined acts that prove a new reality. Everything else is reaction.”

    À votre santé! Vive la démocratie directe!

5. The problem with our intelligentsia

BUT FOR NOW I don’t see things as brightly as my friend Hubert, despite my desire to continue to rally people towards direct democratic and participatory democratic directions. That’s the pessimist side of me speaking.
    "I don't blame the Americans for keeping to their interests. Ang problema is how well we fight for ours," Filipino historian Xiao Chua said in a talk show on Net25.
    Well, mabuhay ka, ser Xiao. Natumbok mo ang anatomiya ng lumpenbourgeoisie-ness; ang lumpenbourgeoisie-ness na hindi mawawala sa paghahanap ng ibang amo.

    And so, if our French Revolution of sorts is to be provoked by our intelligentsia, we should wonder where our intelligentsia are.

    Recently, this news came out about Duterte defender and former journalist pundit Teddy Boy Locsin’s engaging Duterte-critical netizens in a word war as he defended the President, specifically on Twitter: click here. Locsin has been designated by the new President as the new Philippine ambassador to the United States.

    We do not begrudge Locsin his newly-avowed opinion and position, as this new position may reflect his utopia of a better world articulated in his criticism as a journalist. Perhaps his fans’ dismay at his “having changed” is a mal-appreciation of what he stood for on the whole in the past, thus their shock at his present behavior.

    Nevertheless, it also cannot be denied that elements of the intelligentsia in this country, like their contemporaries in government, find it easy to sacrifice old ideals for new pragmatisms, being armed with the articulateness to justify flip-flops when a flip-flop or perceived flip-flop occurs.

    And whenever that adaptation happens, and I’m not saying that that’s what happened in Locsin’s case, it’s because that’s precisely what happens when our intelligentsia elements unwittingly or subconsciously promise themselves not to fight for their causes of old (or even new causes) but for a politician, especially when they fight for their selfish enjoyment under the patronage of those politicians. There are way more “fuck-faces” in this republic than the number of letters in the name of Teddy Boy Locsin. Politician-directed loyalism is the national disease in this our disguised monarchic system, in this our era before the far future occurrence of events that may lead to our French Revolution of sorts. [S / -I]

UNLESS WE PUT BACK THE L IN EDLSA, CHANGE WOULD STILL BE STUCK IN TRAFFIC AND WON'T BE COMING AT ALL

hiram mula sa http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/video/380824/balitanghali/rep-salceda-mas-nagdudulot-ng-traffic-sa-edsa-ang-pokemon-go-kaysa-provincial-buses

EMERGENCY powers. Ito ang hinihingi ng Malacañang sa Senado para malutas ang traffic at transportation crisis sa Metro Manila. "Change is coming" with those emergency powers, pangako ng paulit-ulit na campaign at government slogan ng Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte. Subalit, teka, kung ang departamento ehekutibo ang nanghihingi at hindi ang Senado ang humingi ng hearing tungkol sa usapin na ito ng emergency powers para sa Pangulo, ito ang tanong: Di ba ay may inihanda at isinumite ka na dapat na plano sa Senado bago ka pa man pumunta roon para pormal na manghingi ng emergency powers? Bakit kailangan ka pang tanungin kung ano ang mga plano mo ng mga taong hinihingan mo ng emergency powers?
    Huwag na natin isa-isahin ang mga planong inilahad din naman ng departamento ehekutibo sa Senate hearing tungkol dito, pareho yung wow, na naman at yung maganda o tumpak na plano; kayo na ang bahalang mag-research kung ano ang mga ito at kumumporme o kumamot sa ulo sa bawat isa sa mga ito. Ngayon, gusto ko lang balikan ang mga nakaraan para mailatag ko ang aking pananaw sa buong polisiya sa trapik at transportasyon ng gobyernong ire.


MGA kababayan, may paborting salitang Bisaya na ginagamit ang Pangulo kapag nalalamyaan sa isang tao: bayot. Sa Tagalog, ibig sabihin nito ay bakla. Alam ko naman na ang ibig sabihin ng Pangulo ay malamya lamang, o walang tapang, o mahina, at hindi tunay na bakla, dahil alam naman niya siguro na maraming bakla ang may tapang at lakas ng loob, tulad nalang halimbawa ng tapang na marahil ay nakita niya kina Behn Cervantes at Lino Brocka noong panahon ng Martial Law. Gayunpaman, ayokong gamitin ang salitang ito kung ako naman ang malalamyaan sa isang polisya ng gobyernong ito dahil homophobic ang dating, tulad ng pagka-sexist ng pagsabing "para ka namang babae." Kaya ang gagamitin kong salita pag ako ang malalamyaan sa isang polisiya o kawalan ng isang pagkaklaro at pagkadiretso at pagka-malakas ay . . . malamya lamang. O di kaya walang kuwenta. O di kaya supot. Oops, di rin yata politically correct yon.
    Huwag na tayong magpaligoy-ligoy pa. Ito ang tanong ko:
    Kelan kaya tayo magkakaroon ng gobyernong may buong tapang na i-nationalize ang lahat ng sasakyang pampubliko sa metropolis o di kaya gawin ang ginawa sa Melbourne na di man nationalized ay nasa ilalim ng consortia kung kaya't di magulo, dahilan kung bakit nakaya niyang ipagbawal ang pribadong sasakyan sa ilang daan ng metropolis (maliban sa business cargo vans), at inobliga ang lahat na gumamit ng sasakyang pampubliko, maging janitor man o CEO ng mga korporasyon. Parang sa Japan din, kung saan pati ang mga CEO ay kumakain sa cafeteria ng mga sararimanu (salary men). Kelan kaya tayo makakakita ng ganitong uri ng tapang para sa pagkakapantay-pantay ng lahat sa daan? Kelan? Kailan?!
    Sa ngayon kasi, tila may pagsandal na naman sa rason na ang trapik ay di naman parating "matrapik", at ito ay pinapalala lang din ng isang kathang-isip nating mga komyuter. Hmm. Kaya pala't narito pa rin tayo at may patuloy na pakikinabang ang oil companies sa malalang trapik na nagpapalago sa kanilang mga negosyo, salamat sa pagsunog ng mga sasakyan ng gasolina kahit di umaandar ang mga ito.
    Naroon ang nakapagtatakang mga naunang utos ng LTFRB kung saan ipinagbawal ang pagdaan sa EdlSA ng isang uri ng public transport (UV Express) pabor sa isang public transport (buses), na di ko malaman kung ano ang naitulong sa trapik sa EdlSA gayung dumami lang naman ang nagcolorum na mga vans at naglipana na rin ang mga Uber at Grab. Ito ay habang nagkakakanta ang gobyerno na priyoridad daw nila ang public transport, gayung wala pa namang nagagalaw na paggalaw ng mga pribadong sasakyan at ang UV Express pa nga ang unang pinagdiskitahan, at pinaglakad pa ng malayo ang ilang mga mananakay nitong working class patungo sa kanilang mga MRT connecting stations. At sasabihin ng gobyerno na socialist daw siya at maka-working class? Sus, ginoo.
    (Mabuti naman at pagkaraan ng ilang linggo ay binawi rin ito ng mga taga-Dabaw na nagpatupad nito na tila may weird na konsepto tungkol sa trapik sa EdlSA, bagamat may mga kondisyon pa rin itong di ko pa rin maintindihan. O naiintindihan ko kung umaalis ako sa sosyalistang perspektibo na pinangalandakan ng gobyerno na siya rin daw perspektibo na pinanggagalingan nila. Pweh.)
    Meron ba talagang solusyong bago ang gobyerno natin ngayon maliban sa mga imprastaktura na naman na makikipaghabulan na naman sa dumaraming sasakyan na humahabol sa bilang ng mga indibidwal sa lumulobong populasyon ng lungsod?
    Ang problema ng trapik ay hindi ang trapik, kundi ang kathang-isip ng mga rehimen na ang tanging solusyon sa paglobo ng populasyon ng mga pribadong sasakyan ay nasa paggiba ng mga bahay para matayuan ng mga kalsada. Saan ito hihinto, pag naubos na ang mga bahay? Ang problema ng EDSA (at hindi ng EdlSA) ay sa patuloy nating pagsamba sa pagkasanto ng mga pribadong sasakyan nang walang pagtatanong man lang kung alin at sino ba talaga ang dapat na ituring na santos ng highway na ito. Matagal na nating tinanggap na santos ang mga pribadong sasakyan dito, nang walang pagpreno at pagmunimuni tungkol sa kung sino ba talaga ang los santos. The saints. Napapanahon na siguro na ibalik natin ang L sa EdlSA, silang mga tunay na los santos, ang public transport commuters na siyang dapat na sinasamba ng mga polisiyang pang-transportasyon.
    Sa ngayon, wala. Wala akong nakikitang solusyon na magpapahinto sa pagpabor ng gobyerno sa pribadong sasakyan. Ang future transporation utopia kung saan wala nang pribadong sasakyan ay di pa darating sa Pilipinas sa mga darating na siglo. Kailangan pa siguro natin ng liderato na sa isyung ito ay may totoong tapang, tapang na may dalang pagbabago sa buhay ng mga taong di pinagkaitan ng kaukulang pansin ni Lino Brocka. Tapang di lamang sa pagtanggap sa katotohanan na kailangan na natin ng nasyon ng mass transport at di nasyon ng mga pribadong sasakyan na wala na ngang maparkingan ay siya pa nating sinasamba, at lalo ng tapang na igiit ang solusyon na para sa nakararami, o para sa kanila na araw-araw ay gising sa reyalidad na hindi pinalala ng kathang-isip itong mga nangyayari.
    O di kaya, let's gather our heads on this, people! And I mean, let's gather the real bravery of working together on this in a participatory democracy, instead of relying on just the macho bravado of a Department of Transportation that keeps on giving us nothing but the drugged view of a promise of a bogus socialist transport policy that shall be coursed through diktats. Let's believe in us together, instead of just a Tugade. Together, not Tugade, and rally for real change sans the kowtowing to private interests via emergency powers. (Concerning PPP projects, here's a caveat to all optimistic about new government PPP arrangements expected to come from the emergency powers setup, marketed as the Duterte solution. . . . which, for our information, were actually also marketed before as the Noynoy Aquino, Macapagal-Arroyo, Estrada, Ramos, and Cory Aquino solutions: read about New Zealand's "promised electric trains derailed by misguided enthusiasm", for example).
    I say again: Let's take back our EdlSA, this time with the L that refers to the real santos, the los santos, Lino Brocka's santos, the public-transport-commuting masses. Yan ang epipanyo (o epifanyo, o epiphany) na pinapanangalin kong makita sana ng lahat bago pa man sumambulat ang mga lumang uri ng solusyon na dala ng emergency powers na ito. [S / -I]

ANG ATING LABAN SA ARAW-ARAW

from http://quotesgram.com/joseph-brant-quotes/

BAKIT daw ba ako nagrereklamo sa ilang mga pangyayari sa ilalim ng pamamahala ng gobyerno ni Rodrigo Duterte, gayung ibinoto ko ito at tila ikinampanya pa sa Peysbuk.
    Ang kritisismong ito laban sa kritisismo ko sa ilang hakbang ng gobyernong Duterte ay nagpapatunay lamang na may tatlong prinsipyong umiiral sa ating kultura:

1. Na ganun kalalim ang kumpyansa o tiwala natin sa ating mga manok sa eleksyon, na para bang sila'y walang magiging dungis kung sila ang nanalo at siyang magiging tunay na messiah tungo sa mas magandang umaga;

2. Na ang ating kaligtasan ay nasa isang presidente at hindi nasa mamamayan;

 At, finally,

3. Na ang ating kaligtasan ay nagmumula sa boto natin sa ating mga eleksyon.

KATANGAHAN.
    Dahil ang ating kaligtasan ay hindi nasa mga panginoong matatalino, kundi nasa patuloy na tunay na kritisismo nating mga tao, ayon sa ating kolektibong talino, laban sa mali ng alinmang manok na nanalo sa ating mga eleksyon, maging sila'y manok mo man o manok ko. Dahil sa paniniwala nating nasa kanila ang ating kaligtasan at nasa kanila lamang, diyan tayo patuloy na tinutuka ng garapata ng mga hayop na 'to na tinuturing ng ating representatibong demokrasya na siyang tanging may talino para sa milyun-milyon.
     Oo nga't dapat may binoboto tayo tuwing eleksyon. At oo, yaong sa palagay natin ay may mas magandang plano, isasakatuparan niya man ito o babaliktarin. Pero yan ay eleksyon lamang ng mga lider, mga kababayan. Nakakalimutan natin na ang lider ng mga lider ay tayo, at ang pamamahala ng mga lider ay dapat pumapangalawa lamang sa ating mga kagustuhan bilang pinakamataas na lider ng demokrasya, demokrasyang di sana humihinto pagkatapos mahalal ng inihalal. Kung patuloy nating kakalimutan ito, aba'y ano ang pinagkaiba ng kultura ng demokrasya natin sa royalistang kultura ng fans ng naglalaban-labang mga hari ng mga monarkiya?
    Sa tingin ko, kaya tayo di umuunlad o may mabagal na pag-unlad sa ating pulitika ay dahil tayo ang nag-aaway-away sa sabungan ng ating reyalidad na pinapatakbo ng partisanong confirmation bias na itinanim sa mga utak natin ng ating mga pinanigang partido. Tila ayaw na nating harapin ang katotohanan na ang dapat nating sinasabong ay ang ilang mga polisiya ng mga manok nating tila'y wala pa ring humpay ang katutuka sa atin sa araw-araw.
    Sabi pa nga ni Dana D. Nelson: ". . . our habit of putting the president at the center of democracy and asking him to be its superhero works to deskill us for the work of democracy. . . . the presidency itself has actually come to work against democracy."


ANG lalim ng ating kumpyansa o tiwala sa ating mga manok sa eleksyon, na para bang sila'y walang magiging dungis kung sila ang nanalo at siyang magiging tunay na messiah tungo sa mas magandang umaga, ay nagpapatunay lamang na di pa rin tayo makaalis doon sa ating paghahanap ng ideyal na lider sa katauhan ng mga manok natin. Ito ay nagpapakita rin na sa pamamagitan ng patuloy nating pagsandal sa ideyal na lider sa ating nanalong manok, o sa ideyal sanang lider sa ating natalong manok na sa ating paniniwala ay siyang may dalang liwanag ng umaga, ay nananatili tayong nakakulong doon sa mito ng "ideyal na lider" sa katauhan ng mga elemento ng plutokrasiya na may mga sagot sa problema na para bang hindi natin kaya.
    Nakalulungkot na ang ating mga laban ay, bagamat para sa atin din, unang-una ay para sa kanila.
    How I wish that every political critic (professional and not) owned this sub-definition of "politician" or "government official"---as one who is a friend in a cause and an enemy in another. It's sad that politicians and political parties or factions have become many of my friends' political end-causes themselves.  [S / -I]

REMINDING THE PRESIDENT OF THAT DISTRUST THAT PRODUCED "IN DIGONG WE TRUST"

photo from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2011_Philippine_State_of_the_Nation_Address.jpg

THE President is giving us a dressing-down for flagging his statements that favored a Con Ass over a Con Con for the drafting of a new Constitution. He says that this distrust towards our senators and congressmen in Congress is too much. And he says nobody has a monopoly on good wisdom.
    We understand the President's concern about the huge resources that would be needed for a Con Con. However, the President must indulge us our continuing distrust of these people in Congress along with their wisdom. We might like to note that they mostly derive from the wealthy class of our Republic, as do their wisdom (or wisdom absent from their knowledge).
    As a self-described Socialist, the President might understand where people's distrust is coming from. In fact, he might recall that his campaign leaned on this very distrust towards the wealthy political class. He used this distrust to push for a more trustworthy alternative, and in fact continues to use it as a rationale for many of his freshly-launched new or rehashed policies, the anti-illegal drugs drive being one of them. After all, this is the same wealthy political class that would never give up its access to the pork barrel (of whatever name) and rid us of a pork-barrel-run system of executive-legislative governance. This is the same wealthy political class that would like to continue to use the "epal" tradition of putting their names on every government project or vehicle or structure that they can appropriate as products of their generosity. Therefore, it is this very same wealthy political class that would likely avoid a furtherance of power-sharing areas with the people through stronger direct democracy instruments such as the initiative, the right to call for referenda, the right to recall elections, among others. Thus our fear that this Con Ass could very well decide to get rid of the people's initiative clause in the 1987 Constitution (instead of strengthening it).
    Sure, it's possible that delegates to a Con Con might be just as suspect to our nation's eyes. There would be the gamble. But the President must understand that our fears in relation to most politicians in Congress are not totally without grounds. The President might remember that most, if not all, of his new policies, and the people's support of them, all come from fears. So that if he can trust that our larger fears against the proliferation of illegal drugs in our neighborhoods are what is keeping us from fearing his police state methods against illegal drugs more, then he must trust our expression of fears in other areas.
    Who knows: he who rules by fear just might be able to help this nation further in exploiting and defeating one other fear: the fear of reinvigorated old privileges among wealthy political class elements when they go unchecked by the people who may have just been further excluded from their government via a more fake democracy in a new Constitution. [S / -I]

My amendment proposals to the Initiative and Referendum Act (RA 6735)

DESPITE my being a part of the convenors' team of ePIRMA (the Empowered People's Initiative and Reform Movement Alliance instigated by Manny SD Lopez with my help) that later joined forces with the Cebu Catholic hierarchy-backed Cebu Coalition and the Makabayan Coalition in a largely evolutionary effort to draft the 2014 People's Initiative Against Pork Barrel, it’s true that I had reservations about the viability of the Philippines’ initiative process as avowed by the existing initiative-enabling law (RA 6735). Assuming that my reservations were loudly expressed and not merely kept to myself, you could say now that my hangup was proven correct. In this video clip from a GMA News coverage of an October 2013 forum at Hotel Rembrandt on Tomas Morato Avenue, watch from 1:46:

     I am not, of course, Joey de Veyra (I'm Jojo de Veyra), and I was not trying to "batikos" (criticize) the proposition campaign during the time of this news clip. In fact, despite my being identified as the convenor of a different group (the Facebook group called Forum for Direct Democracy Philippines), I (armed with the FDDP's cause) was among those very individuals trying to convene more people to join in ePIRMA's effort, efforts that culminated in a "people's congress" held at the Asian Institute of Management convention center in December 2013. If you are to get access to a coverage video of my entire speech at that forum---and my answer to a journalist's question on how ePIRMA proposed to do the signature-gathering realistically---you'd see where I stood in that whole affair, despite a supposed ambiguous position I carried according to that very brief portrayal of my voice in that news clip by 24 Oras. But that's immaterial now. The point is that I did, somehow, express reservations about the potential of the effort to succeed, which was a reservation shared by many in the group that also pushed the group to join forces with the Cebu Coalition (which was then loudly doing a parallel campaign in the Visayas) for a more united front.

     In August 2014, the initiative was formally launched in Cebu City. I was there as part of ePIRMA. But as regards to what happened soon after the launch, I'd here confess that the signature gathering was mostly left to certain parishes of the more organized Catholic Church, the primary backing of the Cebu Coalition. Sporadic rallies of support were organized by the Makabayan group and provincial groups. In contrast, other members of ePIRMA were seen to have moved on to various other national concerns. Manny SD Lopez---ePIRMA's leading convenor and most active campaigner on the road---would also busy himself with organizing the Christian Peace Alliance, one of the groups advocating for a drastic review of some provisions of the then-in-its-final-thrust Bangsamoro Basic Law. Lopez would also form the EdlSA 2.22.15 Coalition, a group that called for President Benigno Aquino III's resignation after the Mamasapano mishap. I myself soon became part of an online art magazine. So, I submit that in this latter period I was not privy anymore to how the signature-gathering for the initiative on the pork barrel was progressing. I did hear of some pockets of resistance to the initiative, as well as the Comelec's seeming lack of enthusiasm towards verifying the signatures, but that's about it. . . .

     Then came the various noises leading to the 2016 general election, within which any news concerning the initiative's progress was nowhere to be found on Google. Not anymore.

     Then came the elections. And, guess what: Rody Duterte became our new President, and Leni Robredo our new Vice President. What do these names mean? Or, rather, what---ideally---should these names mean to us?

DUTERTE belongs to the PDP-Laban, a political party that claims to be for popular democracy (populism) and participatory democracy. Robredo, in turn, is the wife of the late Jesse Robredo; Jesse made a name for himself as a stalwart of participatory governance in his capacity as mayor of Naga City before he became the Interior Secretary of Noynoy Aquino. Leni, as Jesse's widow, was soon drafted by the Liberal Party to run for Congress; she won and became a vocal campaigner for participatory democracy and, as a priority, participatory budgeting (you can read my worldview on Leni Robredo's decorative role within the Liberal Party government by clicking here).

     What, to me, the whole situation means to signal is this: that perhaps the time is ripe for a more realistic RA 6735, one that would provide the people a usable initiative instrument in lieu of the existing one that simply provides a semblance of direct democracy that ultimately ends up as short (because near impossible to fulfill the requirements of).

     Thus, for us to truly provide a usable instrument for a participatory government of the people, by the people and for the people (as against the continuance of our present purely-representative democratic governance by the prescriptive representatives of the people, of the prescriptive representatives of the people and ultimately for the interests of these supposed representatives of the people), let me now propose the following amendments to RA 6735 (even before that new federal-parliamentary Constitution being proposed by the Duterte government arrives). My proposed amendments are here below, in red, which a lawyer out there could perhaps to more properly articulate:

Section 5. Requirements. — (a) To exercise the power of initiative or referendum, at least ten per centum (10%) of the total number of the registered voters, of which every legislative district is represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters thereof in the case of Constitutional amendment, and of which every region is represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters in the case of national statute initiatives, shall sign a petition for the purpose and register the same with the Commission.

(b2) A petition for an initiative on a new national statute, or one on an initiative seeking to amend an existing statute, must have at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters as signatories, of which every region must be represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein. Initiative seeking to amend an existing national statute may be exercised only after three (3) years from the ratification of the same and only once every three (3) years thereafter.

Section 7. Verification of Signatures. — The Election Registrar is obligated to verify the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters' affidavits and voters identification cards used in the immediately preceding election within twenty (20) days from receipt of the petition.

SECTION 8. Conduct and Date of Initiative or Referendum. — The Commission shall call and supervise the conduct of initiative or referendum.
     Within a period of thirty (30) days from receipt of the petition, the Commission shall, upon determining the sufficiency of the petition within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the same, publish the same in Filipino and English at least twice in newspapers of general and local circulation and set the date of the initiative or referendum which shall not be earlier than forty-five (45) days but not later than ninety (90) days from the determination by the Commission of the sufficiency of the petition.

     My arguments-cum-reasons for these amendments, should they appear to be not so obvious, I shall provide later in other essays. For now let me say that the signature requirement of 3% of the registered voting population per legislative district is, while required by the Constitution for Constitutional amendments, is just too steep for the creation of new statutes and initiatives seeking to amend existing statutes. Furthermore, with that requirement, it is possible for one legislative district to hostage the national interest, which definitely runs counter to the tenets of democracy and plurality. Furthermore, the period required for the Comelec to do its job in the management of this process must be accompanied with administrative penalties to avoid any inside filibustering of this democratic process. . . . [S / -I]

Another Post-Election Mini-Essay, On an Old Insistent Blues Concerning "The Stupid", That Here Quickly Counter-Blames the Complainers

IT'S the post-election blues. Again, here we are scoffing at our fellow voters for having chosen the wrong leaders. But, Reader, may I ask a favor before I go to my mini-essay proper? Let's not use the words dumb and stupid, since only a few of you, my readers, are psychologists or psychometrists, and I'm not one as well. Let's use the words educated and informed instead. Okay?
     Now to my essay.
     You see, every time I open a conversation about direct democracy instruments and participatory democracy, especially now during these post-election blues days, the classic answer I get is "we're not ready for that yet; we have an uneducated (not dumb or stupid) masses that you can't even trust to vote for the right people. How much more to trust them to decide on issues!"
     Here's my classic answer to that:
     For an average person to vote for or against a direct democracy initiative on, say, abolishing the pork barrel, it’s true he would need to be educated on it and be informed in order for him to feel concerned or be strongly affected. But it’s also true that all he’d really need to do is listen to the debates on it on radio, TV, or the tabloids. He, as a citizen who is either readily aware of what he wants or has been made aware of what he needs now and should want as a living entity in a society, need not have a PhD to know on what side of the issue he should position himself in after a good soak in the problems around that legal issue. In fact, he need not be as educated and deeply informed as a technocrat to be able to know that a sand mine could be bad for his fishing village.
     Then here's my classic counter to the belief that we cannot afford to stray from the arena of pure representative democracy, at least for now, while the masses have yet to attain their good education.
     You see, for an average person to know a candidate full well, in the sense of knowing the latter's qualifications as well as record and history (of positions on many issues and flip-flops and alliance shifts therein), listening to debates on the radio about that person during a campaign period won't be enough and won't ever be enough. In fact, to know a candidate really well, one needs to read an entire good book on him.
     In short, we've got our reasoning backwards. In representative democracy, for us to be right in our choice of a candidate for a position, we’d need wide access to education and full information, at least as regards to the personalities running whom we are obligated by suffrage to choose from. With direct democracy instruments, on the other hand, we only need to know what we want and need in relation to a law or bill being discussed! With direct democracy initiatives or calls for referendums, we don’t need to read an entire book on, say, taxation and social spending in order for us to get the idea that maybe the display of government officials’ names and pictures in public projects is not a good practice. With choosing a person to manage an entire gamut of problems on our behalf, we would.
     And so, once again, as I always say every after election day with its usual blues, . . . you can't really complain about our fellow Filipinos' propensity to choose the wrong leaders. For in your conscious or unconscious support of pure representative democracy (in our parts known as our cacique democracy) and your conscious or unconscious apathy toward what should be a much-needed clamor for the people's participation in governance via direct democracy instruments, you have also unwittingly been party to a system that churns out a cycle of elections where the people elect wrong candidates for their government (since people often can't know much about their leaders and can, in contrast, only know themselves full well, particularly what they want and need).
     Today you spit on your neighbors' having acted dumbly and stupidly in choosing a right leader or leaders. You brag about your choice's having been the correct one, even as you yourself can't be certain about it, or even as you could be just as wrong as your neighbors with your choice.
     You spit on your neighbors' choice. And here's my counter to that:
     What did you do to keep them from putting too much premium on elections? What did you do to convince them that pure representative democracy is not the only form of democracy or that it is in fact a fake form of democratic practice? What did you do to let them know that what they have accustomed themselves to holding as sacred is really nothing more than a system of government by elected representatives of the people, of these supposed representatives of the people, and often for these representatives' interests only while they pretend to be representing the people’s needs? What have you done to be less dumb or less of a stupid slave than them to this star system not of truths about the stars but about myths about these stars?
     You, too, could be one of the reasons why your neighbors can’t go beyond the worship of the heroic mirages in the sky that they will never be competent enough to be certain of, not even if you give them PhDs with books to read, for even a PhD degree doesn’t guarantee a rounded knowledge about candidates. For the only things your neighbors can really fully be certain of are themselves and their desires for their lives, regardless of their IQ or educational level. Just as the only thing you can be fully certain of is yourself and your desires for your well-being, regardless of your IQ or educational level. [I /-S]