Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Timely Reflections in an Unexpected Context

by Pamela Joy Mariano

I am writing this in the pre-departure waiting area of NAIA Terminal 2, as I wait for my noon flight to Cagayan de Oro. In the seat directly behind me is a Muslim woman and her companion—their religious affiliations betrayed by the veil that she wears—and she is having an animated conversation in Bisaya with the women across from her, whom I assume are not Muslim. My guess, which is confirmed by the snatches of conversation I overhear, is that she is Maranao. After all, Cagayan de Oro's airport is about 30-40 minutes away from Iligan, Lanao del Norte, and the hills and lakes of Lanao are the homeland of the Maranao tribe, different from the Maguindanao who come from the plains of Cotabato.


It struck me at that moment—these women exemplify the plurality and diversity in Mindanao, and of the Philippines in general, the diversity of views, of religious affiliations, of tribal and regional affiliations and of language communities. A monolithic notion of “Filipino” and “Filipino identity” is impossible to formulate, and yet, that is what both the media and the government seem to project—that Filipino is a category easily defined and circumscribed.

Not unexpectedly, the women behind me are talking about politics in Mindanao, especially in ARMM. As I sat down a few minutes ago, I caught the tail-end of an exchange about the massacre, that I roughly translate here:

“It has nothing to do with religion, and all to do with politics.”

I don't listen to the rest of their conversation—it's impolite to eavesdrop—but I can't help catching snatches of their conversation, just words and phrases at random and out of context: private armies; automated elections; voting; names of presidential candidates.

It made me think of what the events in the small town of Ampatuan have to say to us, what it tells people who live their lives hundreds or thousands of kilometers away, but still exist within the same state. The inhumane killing of 57 people in Ampatuan tells us in the most glaring terms the tenuous nature of Philippine democracy. Despite the supposed democratic nature of our government as enshrined in our constitution, and in groundbreaking laws such as the LGU Act and the IPRA, the principles that these laws are rooted in are often not manifest in reality. The politics of impunity are still prevalent, cases of electoral violence still abound. We forget that the exercise of force and violence *are not exercises of power in politics*. Because of this, many of us feel helplesness and powerlessness.

But our felt helpessness in the face of the Ampatuan Massacre does not have to lead to powerlessness. Power is not a function of how much money you have, nor the size of your private army, nor the number of “influential” people you know. The nature of democracy, in an oversimplified sense, is that power originates in and from the people as a whole. This past week can be a way for us to remember what our democracy is realy supposed to be about—acknowledging that we are the ones who govern ourselves, that our voices are the the ones that should be heard. Part of this requires us to recognize that our country, our state, is one composed of a plurality of groups and affiliations, and how it is necessary for us to giving everyone proper representation and recognition. It is in our voices and thoughts and acts that power resides.

If there is anything positive that we can gain from the heinous massacre of 57 people in Maguindanao, it is the reminder of who we are as a political community, as the democratic state called the Philippines. Our collective revulsion at the heinous acts are reminders of our commitment to respecting and honoring the dignity of every human being; our unorchestrated and yet collective outrage at the massacre is a reminder of our unity in the midst of plurality, that unity need not be confused with conformity nor uniformity; our collective efforts to spread the word and make sure that other Filipinos are well-informed about these events in Maguindanao is a reminder of our commitment to personal participation in holding our public servants accountable to us. All of these are principles that our democracy is based on.

When I first heard the news of what is now called the Ampatuan Massacre, I posted as a status update on my Facebook the following question: “How can I continue to read a [philosophy] book about cosmopolitanism in the face of such heinous acts?” Here too the women seated behind me in the airport again have something to teach me. These women were complete strangers prior to their striking up a conversation with each other while waiting for the airplane to leave. Their new acquaintance, conversation, and even friendship began simply on the basis of a common context—the predeparture area of the airport, the same flight, and a common destination—Cagayan de Oro. The commonality of their context does not erase the fact of their difference, but makes it possible for them to share themselves in each other. It makes it all the more important, then, for us to study—and not just intellectually, but in praxis—things like cosmopolitanism. The possibility of friendship and conversation, recognizing difference, initiating dialogue, and promoting peace happens also on all levels, including the level of theory.

Monday, December 7, 2009

Statement on Proclamation 1959 from Individual Members of the Philosophy Department of the Ateneo

We share in the nation's collective disgust and outrage as the massacre in Ampatuan, Maguindanao was brought to light. We grieve together with the victims' families, and stand with the ordinary citizens of Maguindanao who have been treated as vassals and slaves by warlords who forget that they live in a democratic state. We, too, share in the nation's collective dismay at the growing evidence of a continuing politics of impunity in Maguindanao.

However, we question the necessity and legality of the government's declaration of Martial Law and subsequent military rule in Maguindanao. The Constitution's provisions allow for the state of Martial Law to be declared only when there is an actual rebellion or invasion that endangers the safety of the public. While we acknowledge that government functions in the province of Maguindanao have been weakened, we question whether this constitutes one of these limit cases.

In the absence of strong evidence for an actual rebellion in Maguindanao, we fear the declaration may set a dangerous precedent that could open the door to unrestricted power and abuse. That the Ampatuan massacre happened at all reveals the weakness of the state and the disregard that our own leaders and peacekeepers have for the rule of law. The continuation of Martial Law in Maguindanao based on shaky grounds does not strengthen the state; it cripples the state further. Instead of countering the politics of impunity with showing that our democratic systems can and do work for the good of the people, the government has chosen to fight impunity with impunity, violence with violence.

The Constitution provides safeguards to prevent the arbitrary use of emergency powers. Our institutions tasked with the constitutional safeguards against the potential tyranny of Martial Law are being challenged by our circumstances to fulfill their tasks as true servants of our Constitution.

We demand that Congress fulfill its responsibility to review the proclamation and revoke it if necessary. Already late, the Congress should do its constitutional duty and convene itself. We hope that in such a time as this, this Congress can act with good judgment on the matter. But if they cannot act as disinterested representatives of the people who have their constituents' welfare in mind, then they should remember that they are up for re-election and, judging from the surveys, the people are less tolerant of those who have blatantly subverted our systems for their own gain. In May, the people will speak and their almost decade long governance of impunity and continuous machinations of power will come to an end.

We ask the Supreme Court to act swiftly and justly in the resolution of any proceeding that will most certainly be filed with regard to this issue. The high court has a chance to prove its critics wrong, and show once again that a GMA appointed court can decide independently on matters of vital national importance.

Most of all, we ask the military to realize its duty as protectors of the people and defenders of the constitution. May they courageously stand by their professionalism and not allow themselves to be used by people who have questionable agenda.

We realize that many people might agree with the President's extraordinary declaration of martial law to resolve the problem in Maguindanao. But we have to remember that we would not have come to this situation if we had institutions that functioned to safeguard the people's welfare. So we should not exacerbate the problem by overriding our constitutional and legal processes.

We ask, then, that the lawlessness of the Ampatuan Massacre be countered by the lawfulness of our institutions, so that our faith in Constitutional processes and democratic systems can be restored. Lawless acts of evil can only be contained by lawful institutions that work.



Signed,

Individual Members of the Department of Philosophy, Ateneo de Manila
University

Antonette Angeles
Michael Aurelio
Remmon Barbaza
Oscar Bulaong, Jr.
Mark Joseph Calano
Sircio Chan
Manuel Dy, Jr.
Geoffrey Guevara
Jacqueline Jacinto
Michael Ner Mariano
Pamela Joy Mariano
Jovino Miroy
Rowena Azada-Palacios
Agustin Martin Rodriguez
Jomel Santos
Andrew Soh
Eileen Tupaz
John Carlo P. Uy