Monday, November 28, 2011

Right to Travel

The denial of Gloria’s right to travel, prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest, violated the constitution. The executive department during the Gloria-Macapagal administration committed a grave mistake by arrogating unto itself powers, which are supposedly provided by the Administrative Code, but are contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. The Aquino administration is continuing such grave mistake.

I disagree with Fr. Joaquin Bernas on his opinion that the Supreme Court should be obeyed in as far as the TROs are concerned. But I agree with his position that there was no sufficient and reasonable basis, prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest, to violate a constitutional right (right to travel). The curtailment of such right is based on a reading of the Administration Code, which could not supersede the constitutional provision.

The principle is simple, it was not right to violate Gloria's right to travel on the ground that she may be charged with an offense in court or that she may not return to face the charges. We can never eat the fruits of a poisonous tree without any negative consequence. We were mad when Gloria used the travel ban during her term. We should be mad when anyone uses this travel ban now.

Sunday, November 27, 2011

On Hacienda Luisita


I must say that this statement of Conrado De Quiros (PDI, Nov. 28, 2011) is an ideal scenario:
"P-Noy’s family should never have waited for the Supreme Court to have decreed its unconditional redistribution in the name of the law. P-Noy’s family should never have waited for the Supreme Court to find a weapon to hurl at them in the name of conscience. They should have redistributed the land unconditionally long ago."

But the ideal scenario is to not wait for an agrarian unrest to happen before redistributing those lands. Those lands should have been redistributed to legitimate tillers upon securing ownership from the Spaniards.

I must also say, however, that both scenarios are tantamount to committing hindsight. Those scenarios are simply not possible given the temper of those times. What is possible today may not necessarily be possible yesterday
.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Brouhaha over Gloria


The arrest of Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, former president of the Republic of the Philippines, is a case of a blatant display of intimidation by at least one instrumentality of the State – the executive branch of the government. A reading of the incidents leading to the arrest points to the fact that the Department of Justice was bent on preventing Arroyo from leaving the country. The department ignored the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court, which allowed the former president to seek medical attention abroad. To buttress its position, the department partnered with the Commission on Elections in determining the culpability of Arroyo to the charge of electoral sabotage, a non-bailable offense that carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Although there is no clear evidence to pin the department and the commission for collusion, the bottomline is that the commission filed the charge of electoral sabotage on the same day that the Supreme Court was to decide on the right to travel of Mrs. Arroyo. Before the day ended, the court issued the warrant of arrest for the embattled Arroyo.

A fundamental question that demands to be answered is whether the executive branch is justified in ignoring the issuance of the Supreme Court. The standard response to this question is in the negative. The Supreme Court must be obeyed. However, since the court neither declared how it interprets a law nor decided over a competing legal claim, the court may not be followed. Temporary restraining orders issued by courts are not absolute. They are at the very least temporary and at the very most a mere suspension of judgment. Justices of the courts are not paid to stop the wheels of justice from spinning, which is what TROs are all about. Justices are paid to hear the parties in conflict and to decide on the cases brought before their attention. TROs are unconstitutional.

The Pasay Regional Trial court is perhaps within the bounds of its power to issue the warrant of arrest against Mrs. Arroyo. However, it could not have acted if the Commission on Elections did not file the case.

The hospital arrest of Mrs. Arroyo is a testament of how government could abuse its authority. Mrs. Arroyo should be jailed, just like any other persons issued with a warrant of arrest. By putting her instead on hospital arrest, the government is being selective, in addition to being coercive, and abusive.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Poverty


POVERTY is the opposite of human development, which the Human Development Report (HDR) 2011 defines as the “expansion of people’s freedoms and capabilities to lead lives that they value and have reason to value”. It limits human freedom, as Amartya Sen would say, and this can be attributed largely to “unequal access to capabilities”.

If one lives in a place where the natural capital is depleted (practically nearly the entire Philippines), then one suffers (both the rich and the poor) from an environment that is not conducive for human survival, unless one migrates to a greener pasture. If one is born out of a poor family, then one has to suffer the consequences of being born in that predicament, unless any of the following happens: a child has the capability to finish school and becomes highly competent or learn a skill; a parent sacrifices to ensure that a child finishes school or learns a skill, and a member of the family, clan, community, society or the government provides support to the child.

There is always a sufficient reason why a poor person is born and suffers the consequences of such fate. A material cause can be the parents. A formal cause can be high fertility. The efficient cause can be the decision of the poor parents to beget a child despite their poverty. The final cause can be the limited vision of the poor parents in producing a child they could not nurture and educate. The instrumental cause can be the failure of the members of the community or society to become each other’s keeper.