An Unsettling Impeachment

by Agustin Martin G. Rodriguez

Before I begin, and before you read this, I would like to make this disclosure. My wife was a court attorney at the office of the Chief Justice for 6 years. However, I only met him once and that was when CJ Corona swore my wife in as a judge. I do not know him as a person or as a Chief Justice except for what most people know from the papers and some amusing office stories I hear from my wife. I am writing this not because of any loyalty for him but because I voted for the Liberal Party and I had high hopes that this party would be the traditional party that could rise above traditional politics. If you think that my thoughts here will be biased because of any of these things I disclosed, then you should skip this piece.


The impeachment of CJ Renato Corona shocks me and leaves a hollow feeling at the base of my stomach. I know that the way I am thinking about this issue and how I am reacting to it places me squarely on the other side of the fence of people I have campaigned for good governance and democratic reform with, but I can’t help it. I have been trying to make sense of my own reaction to this whole event because it bothers me to be thinking so differently from the people I so admire and struggled with for the marginalized, and so far this is the most I can make of how I feel.



I believe that my unease is multi-layered and so I will begin by exploring the layers of it. The first layer of disquiet is this: everyone is so angry at the Court for having shot down the truth commission idea. Truly, I was one of those people who wanted so much to have a truth commission to unearth the perceived evil that the GMA people accomplished. More than that, I wanted her to pay for the evil if indeed it can be proved. However, the truth commission was not so well conceived that it could arguably shown to violate the constitution. In ruling that the executive order (EO 1) creating the Truth Commission is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court’s majority declared the EO violated the equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution when it singled out the GMA administration as the subject of the Commission’s investigation. The majority believed that there are no substantial distinctions between the GMA administration and other past administrations to justify being singled out in the EO. The dissenters, however, disagreed and believed that it is reasonable to say that the GMA administration is different from other past administrations and can be treated differently. There is no definitive answer either way, and it would have taken a minor revision for the order to be approved by the Court. The Chief Justice sided with the Court’s majority. It is difficult to see why he should be condemned for his stance on an issue which is contentious or for a majority opinion he did not even write. If we wanted that Commission to unearth the evil that GMA Inc was and is, then why didn’t the government lawyers do their job well? Shouldn’t something like this have been crafted with such impeccable legal logic that it could not be faulted for its unconstitutionality? And yet it was so easily shot down, and when it was shot down they didn’t just go ahead and do the revision. I don’t think we should fault the Supreme Court for the administration’s sloppy lawyering. And yet we did—so much that we want CJ Corona to fall for it. Even if the Court was acting out of misplaced loyalty to the fallen ring master, why are they being blamed for the administration’s shoddy work?

I think this is true too for the latest crisis that sparked this unsettling impeachment. When the Court issued a temporary restraining order against the DOJ watchlist which would have allowed GMA to travel, she was not yet charged of any crime and, in fact, the DOJ was still in the process of investigating her for possible prosecution. Unquestionably, the right to travel is in our bill of rights and may be impaired only “in the interest of national security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law.” Others opine that the there should have been a hearing first before the TRO was issued. But there is no law or rule requiring that. Again, this is not the decision of the Chief Justice but of the En Banc. It cannot be said that the majority of the Court which includes the Chief Justice had no basis in law for its ruling as in fact they were upholding a constitutional right. And yet since the dominant voices in society have determined that they decided wrongly then the Court is wrong and biased despite having legitimate bases for its decisions. Wouldn’t this whole crisis have been averted if the cases against the ex-first couple of corruption had been filed properly and earlier? It had been how many months already since the government was supposed to have prioritized this case, and still they could not come up with a properly filed case. Even if they say, as they do, that it was a difficult case to put together, still they were able to file it over the weekend after the TRO was issued. Why were they so slow before that if they could produce a case instantly when the TRO was issued? Wasn’t this another case of bad lawyering? The administration lawyers just have to admit that they were almost out maneuvered. What could have been their excuse for the delay? And why blame the Court for having decided a case in a way that could arguably have upheld a constitutional right? I am no lawyer, but I am a citizen and I would rather that the Supreme Court err on the protection of a citizen’s rights, no matter how evil, than for it to bend to the will of those in power or the popular sentiment. We cannot violate enshrined rights just because we want to make a person pay for her crimes: that is the slipperiest slope we can slip on. Just remember how our parents allowed Marcos to take liberties on our rights just to defeat the threats to social order.

The second important layer to my unease, and I believe it may be the unease of many others, concerns the very process of how we impeached the Chief Justice. As we now know, the impeachment complaint was passed around blitzkrieg fashion to make sure that the administration party mates and allies in the persecution of GMA signed the document immediately without having to subject this to discourse or deliberation. Classic railroading or bulldozing is what this was. And tactically, this move is extremely admirable. However, what the administration is doing with this impeachment is to accuse one of the leaders of the pillars of our government of corruption and of acting in a way that undermines the will and welfare of the people. Actually, what it is doing is accusing the majority of the Court of being corrupted by GMA Inc as seen in its collegial decisions. Whether the administration intended it or not, such a serious accusation undermines the credibility of the Supreme Court, because at heart we are saying that the Court’s most recent decisions were defined by the undue influence of the immediate past president. With such a serious accusation, one that would set in motion a process that would paralyze the Senate and start another media circus, the accusers should make their accusation with some seriousness grounded on deliberation. Otherwise, this just looks like the vindictive act of one section of the elite against another.

image from wikispaces

A colleague of mine thoughtfully suggested that perhaps the Liberal Party and its allies took on this tactic because they were responding to the very tactics of the enemy. I agree that this was perhaps a response to the perceived reprehensible tactics of GMA and her cohorts to which we were subjected in the last 10 years. She did seem to use the tyranny of her majority to undermine our economic and democratic systems. However, I heard from Secretary Rocamora, a reformer in the administration who heads the Anti-Poverty Commission, that this administration wants to realize reforms profoundly enough so that they cannot be undermined even by a non-reformist government. I admire that sentiment and goal, however, I see this impeachment strategy as a tactic so grossly low, something on the level of GMA herself, that it only furthers the cause of non-democratic governance. I agree with the administration reformers’ strategy that every act that the government accomplishes now should be a precedent as to how we should govern. This makes it doubly disturbing that we will persecute GMA and her allies through the tyrannical acts of an undiscursive and vindictive majority. Just because we are on the side of the good and reform does not justify our means which clearly exhibit the worst of process railroading. Of course, this is allowed by constitutional procedures, but it kills the discursive quest for articulating the just and the good.

The last layer of this controversy that disturbs me is this: ultimately, this whole process is all about the exercise of political power by those who have it. One of the LP traditional politicians actually said on TV that Corona should resign because they have the numbers in the Senate and he should just spare himself the embarrassment. That is just the most crass statement made on the impeachment and it reveals how this whole impeachment is a bullying by the administration of the persons who are an obstruction of their agenda. No matter how just one’s agenda is, one cannot and should not thoughtlessly move to destroy one’s enemy—especially when this destruction could destabilize our already fragile governance system. The recent attacks on the Supreme Court, with their virulence and lack of nuancing, have truly planted the seeds of doubt in the minds of the public. With such an intense accusation, I as a citizen would like to know if the Supreme Court’s decisions are grossly biased for GMA and if indeed they are a hindrance to our quest for justice and reform. In the end, this is what the impeachment is about. The administration feels that the Supreme Court cannot function as the supreme arbiter of the meaning of the laws and ours acts in relation to these—that is their message to the public. I for one, as a member of that public, a citizen who voted this party into power, would like to know if indeed this is true. And so the Chief Justice should not resign! The citizens need to know if they can trust their Supreme Court. Of course, all this hinges on the hope that the Senate will remain fair and just in the impeachment trial. And or course they must, because now more than ever we need to know.

I should be rejoicing during this time. Now that people who have the same reform agenda as I have are in power and they can get things done—and hopefully the right way. But I am not rejoicing. I am very unsettled. And of course, the more political among us will say that I am being naïve again. That in the real world, we need to act in any way that will push forward our reforms—and to a level that reform will be difficult to dismantle. However, we have seen how their zeal can actually damage procedures of good governance. These tactics could actually further entrench the ethos of injustice, corruption, and the tyranny of the majority.

I know that those pursuing GMA feel that they are doing all they can to fulfill their moral duty. And I agree: making those who have wronged us pay is a moral duty. However, to do our moral duty, we must do it properly—with attention to detail, respect for procedure, impeccable lawyering, and utmost respect for the spirit of the rule of law and democracy. The moral crusaders and reformists must remember that they are standing in for a majority whose genuine will and aspirations they do not really understand or know. And as they try to build a world that they imagine does respond to the will of the majority, they should not destroy the processes that will allow this majority to one day represent themselves.

Notes from the End of Life as We Know It 12: Breaking the Pod of I

by Agustin Martin Rodriguez

Why the World Mourned Steve Jobs

When Steve Jobs died, and his profile appeared in apple bites around the world, I was taken aback. So many people genuinely mourned his death. It was as if he was John Lennon or Princess Diana. The world was in mourning and apparently it was a little emptier without him. As they moved from shock to fond farewells and I wondered who it was that they felt they lost.

This is as much as I can figure out: Jobs was like the Beatles. His coming to the world pop culture taught us a new way of being in the world and he made our lives seem richer and more exciting. This he did by making the interphase between human and computer easy—even sexy. Through those solid, white machines that looked so clean and elegant to the equally elegant pods on which we dock and which have become our constant companion, Steve Jobs made us all cyborgs. Jobs and company taught us how to enhance our humanity by being attached to our computers. They were able to do this because they created systems where anyone with a simple capacity to understand symbols, has a deep enough pocket, and has a rationality that can navigate the rudimentary operations of computers can instantly connect to a digital world where communicating with anyone and accessing any information is simple. Users didn’t have to know much except to point and click, and to know what to point at and why.

In the old days, before these computers became popular, one had to be a low level expert in computer languages to be able to make these machines do more than rudimentary computing and word processing. Because of the mouse and the simplified commands for making computers do things, most people can now engage the internet with its web of relations, use all forms of communication technologies that reduce great distances, and compile massive amounts of information from the most sublime to the most shallow. These world shifting innovations served us well indeed. They allowed us to be more informed, creative, productive, connected, and engaged. They allowed us to globalize production and tighten the global factory system. It also democratized the creation, distribution, and acquisition of knowledge. At least it democratized it among people who shared Western rationalities and incomes. (Of course, the down side of this is that it could have furthered the marginalization of the others of global civilization. But that’s another story.)

The ease of computer use served the Filipino spirit well. Filipinos have an intense need to keep in touch with each other. We need to know what all our relatives are up to, how much their children are earning, who married whom, who made it to America, and who is the most unfortunate. We need to know where are classmates are, if they’re earning more than us, if they made it to America or even Singapore, and whose kids are better than ours. The computer and information systems have intensified this need and magnified them to almost obsessive proportions. The public access computers in the Ateneo library are occupied with people checking their Facebooks walls or Twitter accounts. Almost every minute there is some comment on life, some gushing about food, some sharing of some poem, or some linked article read that we have to be updated with.

Pinoys need to reach out and touch others and be affirmed by those others. Because of our connectedness to our computers, this need has become extremely intensified. We constantly have our phones in our hands and forward badly constructed quotes or text inanities just to be able to say something and incite a response. Some obsess about keeping people updated about their present activities such as “enjoying my expresso in Starbucks” or “sad because I missed my class.” Almost constantly and without rest, we are asking for affirmation. Here is my cupcake that I ate the other day. See the picture! Here are a hundred pictures of me sitting with my friends in a restaurant. Here! Read my thoughts on cupcakes with friends in a restaurant. I heard this. I read that. I liked this. Like it too! Here I am! The computer and information technologies we now have made it easier for us to obsess with ourselves and present ourselves instantly to our cyber publics.

These examples of what computers have done for us shows how tools really expand our capacities and serve our needs. We have the need and capacity to communicate. Computers expanded these capacities beyond the face to face. They even modify space and time for us. Space and time are relative now to the speed of transmission and the capacity of the technology to accommodate users.

Technology Enframes

We thank Steve Jobs because his technological innovations made so many things possible: love at a distance, massive barkadas, and intercontinental collaborations—not  to mention our almost limitless self-promotion. These innovations seem to show how technology is responsive to our needs and that they exist to serve us. After all technology is only supposed to expand or extend our capabilities. However, we don’t realize that technologies also frame the way we realize those capabilities. For example, how we communicate and how we handle knowledge—the content of it and the meaning of it as much as the means of it—is computer framed. Today powerpoint determines how we lecture. It is linear, visual, and simple. Everything you have to say is all there and you do have to go too deep. The same is true with reflections, sharing information, and campaigning. These happen on webpages  on the internet. But to share this information you have to be picture-filled, not text-heavy, uncomplicated, and simplistic even.

Research and knowledge sharing have also been changed. For one, there is the democratization of knowledge. Anyone who can type and upload can share anything they want and make people think they are worth reading and quoting. We can also share our talents and make stars of ourselves without having the imprimatur of the controllers of music and entertainment. This certainly opens up the realms of art and culture, but it also floods our world with distractions that may not be worth spending much time on. And many people do spend time watching Youtube videos of babies bumping into walls or monkeys sticking their fingers in their anuses. For another, we have access to truly great things worth dwelling on such as the Apu Trilogy, early Greek music, the complete works of Kant, and scholarly commentary about all these things.

However, the nature of the technology does not encourage dwelling and deepening even of the most profound things we can acquire from it. For instance, because we can download the whole discography of Santana or every quartet of Beethoven, or the filmography of Fassbinder or Tarkovsky, in a matter of a day, we tend to acquire and acquire and flood our hard drives with so much stuff that we feel compelled to just to through everything. When we used to acquire one album at a time, and then it was difficult to acquire more than one at a time, we tended to dwell on those singular things we acquired. After all, one tends of savor the one thing one worked to get. But this cacophony of sound, this wealth of great art, tends to reduce the work to just another thing to consume on the level of the Youtube video of the monkeys dancing and that blog about cupcakes you just have to read.

In this way, we are enframed by the technologies we have. With the advent of these new systems of communicating, sharing, knowing; with our attachment to the computer and electronic systems; we are caught in a way of being that, if we are  not careful, can utterly transform the way we engage the real. How we think, how we know, how we process and deepen our knowledge, are profoundly being shaped by the new electronic media. Even our construction of self is being shaped by this. The fact that you have to posit yourself in Facebook, Twitter, or blog fashion determines how you project yourself. After all, there is a dominant rationality that controls these systems and formats the self-presentation that we are allowed to make. The limitations of space and style, shapes what we want to share and how we should share it. You are a different self in your diary than in your blog. Your posted self follows a format often already shaped by the Western users of that system. If we are not aware of any other way of presenting ourselves, we may just start believing what we project to be the very depths of our selves.

No Time To Think, No Time To Sleep

After the spread of communications technologies as we know them, we are left in a state of restlessness and sleeplessness because the rhythm of opening and retreating has been transformed to relentless exposing. We are called by our computer to always be online because there is always someone online doing something. We can’t really shut the computer anymore because we need to get the new thing, the latest scoop, the currently obsessed about thing. The movement of receiving and processing or reflecting has been disrupted by the bulk of things we have to process and the constant stream of shared information that floods our screens. There is no more time or inclination to be quiet and take things in. And the private spaces where the self can be formed and grow without being continuously bombarded with external noise is lost. We sit in front of computers constantly shifting our attention from task to task, clicking from page to page, processing, digesting, at the speed of digital transfers.

I was talking to a young person, a particularly smart and reflective writer, about the speed at which information was being transferred and accessed and how that robs many young people of the quiet time to reflect. And she said, And why is it so important to reflect? This is what Steve Jobs and the other computer revolutionaries have sold us. This is the new normal of human engagement and interaction, of coming to knowledge, and becoming ourselves. 

The new normal is good because it makes things easy. However, it is also makes us accept these ways uncritically. Without too many people realizing that it was happening, meetings were organized through cell phones, people stopped updating each other personally but through Facebook, protests were brought together through Twitter, and discussion groups were done through YM. Not too many people realized either that although you could gather people through Twitter, you could not educate them on the intricacies of issues through that. Sharing one’s life became less personal because one merely posted on a wall rather than communicating one’s feelings and thoughts to friends. Meetings and discussions over YM had to be superficial because the space constraints determined that we could not explore too deeply our thoughts in that space.  But that was the new normal and everyone accepted that.

image from http://southinkucannance.blogspot.com/2011/11/parking-garage-peep-show.html

However, things are happening too fast, and the new normal is being marketed too forcefully for the young to be able to critically reflect on the value and truth of these things. In fact, they no longer see any alternatives to this normal. Before most people realized it, we were bought into a way of being that we have not decided on nor have we reflected on its value. We just have to have a cell phone because otherwise our community will be limited. We have to have a Facebook account or we will be left out of the loop. We will have to have internet because we will be capability deprived on so many levels.

Today, because of these technologies, we are forced to express ourselves uniformly in ways constructed by others who have more access to us because of the internet. We feel we need to keep presenting ourselves and engaging our publics because otherwise we will be left out. We no longer have time or space to withdraw from the stream of images, information, and ideas. We are forced to be always with our machines and have almost forgotten what it means to be other than machine connected. We have become infolded. We have been pushed to present ourselves and obsess about what we are incessantly but as framed by the formats of the new media. We have also been led to frame the presencing of others such that we can only see them as they present themselves to us in the form of the enframing media.

A New Unfolding to a Generation Infolded

As life as we know it comes to an end, we are called by the play of the real to be more mindful of what comes to presence. The end of abundant food, the end of petroleum, the end of fertile soil, the end of free flowing water, and the end of consumer driven civilizations calls us to be open to the presencing of the end in order for us to articulate what is given to begin. In our time, the play of Being is  being given otherwise than how we have framed it. A new way of realizing human presencing is being challenged from us and we must rise to the call of it. But how do we respond to the call of presencing when we are already framed as the beings who are the masters of and mastered by enframing. We are already framed to let others presence as framed. We even frame our presencing as presentable as posts on a wall or tweets on a screen. We are self-absorbed totalities obsessed with presenting ourselves and consuming the self-presentation of others.

However, from the stasis of our self-absorption, we are being called to open to the advent of the play of eternity. How can we open to the eternal call of Being in play if all we can see is our selves and all we can accept is always already framed? We need to be able to realize an opening which demands a kind of thinking that is able to engage the play of what come to presence in the complexity of its play, in the complexity of its presentation. Only in this way can we be persons who are able to contemplate the play of being that gives presencing. If we are enframing and infolded, we cannot begin to open to what calls us forth to opening.

Unfortunately, the new technologies make us believe that being infolded is the only normal. We are i-pods. The pod of an I enclosed in itself, unable to open freely, to be given freely to what comes calling in presence. We are the plugged pod that cannot break open even when the time of ripening comes because we cannot even begin to sense the invitation to ripening in the air. But we cannot afford to be these petrified pods as we come to the end of life as we know it. Already, the earth is moving to eject us like destructive parasites in the fever of global warming. We will only survive this trying time if we can image new ways of being in the world that are genuinely responsive to the giving of the play of the earth’s presencing and make atonements. But how can we delicately respond if we are I pods—self contained, self-involved pods who interphase with each other in ways determined by enframing systems? We need to break the pods, and relearn opening.

We need to choose to cultivate the capacity to genuinely contemplate the play of presence. This means weaning ourselves from the obsessive distractedness with our machines. It means being able to withdraw from being plugged into the machineries of enframing and being able to contemplate, to reflect, to withdraw into our quiet. Only then will be begin to sense the stirring of rebirth at the end of life as we know it. Only then will the nourishment of renewal coax our pods into new birth.

Moralists vs. Institutionalists: Arguing about Corona's Impeachment

by Rowie Azada-Palacios

My social network feeds are aflame with squabbles about whether the impeachment of Justice Renato Corona was a good thing or not.

I've been trying to make sense of the issue. In particular, I've been trying to understand why the two sides interpret the impeachment events so differently. One side sees the impeachment as a step towards the fortunate ouster of a partial, perhaps corrupt chief justice who, in their view, is willing to coddle a former president to whom he owes favors. The other side sees the impeachment--or at least the events immediately preceding it and the rhetoric surrounding it--as an attack on the very foundations of democracy.

image from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/files/2011/12/aquino-corona.jpg

I presume, here, of course, that both sides are honest, thinking, rational, and moral in their assessment of the issue. And I grant that what I'm about to describe is an oversimplification of views which are probably much more complex or nuanced, but I present these as an initial framework to begin thinking about the public debate that has ensued.

How can the same events be interpreted so differently? My hypothesis is that we have here a difference in paradigms. One camp, I'll call the "Moralists." The other camp, I'll call the "Institutionalists."

Let me say, at the get-go, that both camps make valid points.

The Moralists believe that the chief problem of the country is immoral personalities. The first order of business in reforming the country is getting rid of immoral personalities who are in power, and replacing them with moral people. This is more important to them than the meticulousness of institutional process, and if forced to choose between the meticulousness of procedure, and the ouster of an immoral leader, they will choose the ouster. Institutions are merely a tool towards a moral order, and if the institutions fail to uphold morality, then the institutions can be bent or reshaped.

The Institutionalists believe that the chief problem of the country is weak institutions. For them, the first order of business in reforming the country is fixing and strengthening democratic institutions. To this end, they are willing to tolerate the presence of a few "immoral" officials if they think that that is what is necessary to strengthen and maintain the integrity of institutions. In fact, Institutionalists might even dismiss the notion of "immorality" altogether, viewing moral quarrels instead as accidents of pluralism. Institutions are the remedy to pluralism: they are what allow us to work harmoniously despite our differences, and thus, they must be protected at all costs, to prevent society from descending into chaos.

Moralists look at the country in terms of personalities, and distinguish them from each other according to the categories of "moral" and "immoral." Institutionalists look at the country in terms of institutions.

An insistence on morality and a belief in institutions are not mutually exclusive, of course. Most Moralists also value institutions, and most Institutionalists also shun immorality. The difference, rather, is one of prioritization.

Moralists believe that institutions are useless if they are not led by good people. Institutionalists believe that strong institutions can help a country weather the effects of the worst leadership.

Let's take the Chief Justice as an example. Moralists look at Corona and see a PERSON, an immoral one, someone who has been partial in his decisions. They are happy to see this immoral person ousted, and are willing to tolerate a certain degree of "railroading" if the end-goal of ridding the government of immoral persons is achieved.

Institutionalists look at Corona and see the INSTITUTION he symbolizes, the Supreme Court. Whether or not they like Corona, they see him primarily as the leader of the Supreme Court, and attacks on him (not just the impeachment, but also the rhetorical attacks) as an assault on the Supreme Court. They are upset that the Supreme Court is being attacked, and worry that this could weaken the institutional order that was created by the 1987 Constitution.

Who is right? Each side has a justifiable point. But it's easy to see why the two sides will never agree on this particular issue.

Seedling Banks to Reverse Global Warming

by Rainier A. Ibana*

Two weeks ago, the Rev. Fr. Cezar M. Echano, beloved Parish Priest of St. John the Baptist in Daet, Camarines Norte, sent some seeds from the fruits that he consumed while in Davao City. Since I was not around, our helper placed them on the drier in preparation for planting. As soon as I arrived, I immediately inserted some of the durian seeds into the soil since they might accumulate molds from the left-over pulps which were not peeled by our helper. One week later, roots began to come out of the seeds. I then brought them out of the shade so that leaves can spring out from them.

The best part of planting is when leaves sprout from the shell that has long embraced its kernel. I usually visit our backyard in the morning to look for seedlings that might need help in coming out to the world of light, air and water. I sometimes forget my temporality during these morning rituals as I bend down to unwrap these sprouting gifts of creation. Taking away the shells and allowing the sprouts to spring out into the air remind me of Michaelangelo’s painting that depicts God the Father touching the tip of Adam’s pointing finger during the early moments of creation.


It takes a while before these seeds can come out of their shells. Sour sops (Guyabanos) take more than fifteen days to emerge and sometimes one already feels the verge of disappointment before their fragile stems awkwardly push out the head-shaped seeds from the soil. It will take another week before the empty shells are pushed out and one is tempted to intervene by peeling the pods from the emerging buds. But an early intervention might damage the plant while a later one might no longer be needed as the leaves will naturally spit out the shell that has enslaved them for too long.


Cacao and santol seeds, on the other hand, spring out like water fountains that have long been suppressed by large and heavy rocks from the soil. They sprout in a matter of days and they grow on their own for as long as the cacao seedlings are not over-exposed to the scorching heat while santol stems become sturdier the more they are struck by the sun’s bright rays. Each type of seed has its own peculiar needs in order to flourish.

Papayas, I discovered, are very delicate. One cannot merely throw them anywhere for them to grow on their own. They need a special place where the rays of the morning sun can penetrate the darkness that engulfs them and their roots can rot and wither from too much water. I found out that they grow best under the window sill where the morning light can bless them while the roof protects them from the rain. They can be transplanted only when their stems have become firm and their roots have not yet penetrated the soil too deeply. One has to dig carefully in order to keep the main roots’ grasp on the soil that has nurtured and nourished them.

I have recently consumed many kinds of fruits and planted their seeds depending on the seasons: malig-ang, mangoes and santol in the Summer; avocados in July, rambutans and lanzones in October and November; chicos, mabolos, atis, chesas, jackfruits, pomelos, mangosteens, sampalok, and other endogenous fruit-bearing seeds during particular months of the year. I have even ventured into growing exotic species such as longan, lychees and dates in order to someday relish their succulent pulps. Helping them grow has become a part of the morning rituals that daily energize my body and spirit. Instead of merely jogging or doing calisthenics, I discovered that engaging the earth by putting soil in bags and carrying seedlings to spaces where light dawns on them are more fruitful ways of getting some physical exercise.

At the background of these gardening activities is the awareness that I am positively doing something in favour of the environment by creating more carbon sinks that will help cool down the earth and thus mitigate climate change and perhaps even reverse global warming. I would like to believe that these seedlings are growing much faster than they would normally do because they are also trying to catch up with the excessive carbons that have been released to the environment by our modern lifestyles. These oxygen producing organisms can indeed contribute to our efforts to cool down the earth and enhance the chances of survival for oxygen-consuming animals like ourselves.

If more people, like Fr. Echano, could deposit the seeds from the fruits that they have consumed in seedling banks like the one we have in our backyard and if we can institutionalize more of these seedling banks in our schools, parishes, town plazas, seminaries, homes and other vacant lots, then we can have a tremendous multiplier effect in preserving the integrity and sustainability of creation in our God-given corner of the planet.

We can perhaps better appreciate our daily contribution to the mitigation of climate change and our hope for the reversal of global warming trends if we view it within a larger planetary vision wherein our survival as Earthlings is intertwined with the future of Gaia, the mother Earth on whom we stand as she revolves around the sun and traverses our universe. As astronaut Michael Collins wrote about his experience of stepping on the moon:
“.... I looked back at my fragile home – a glistening, inviting beacon, delicate blue and white, a tiny outpost suspended in the black infinity. Earth is to be treasured and nurtured, something precious that must endure....”



*Rainier A. Ibana, a native of Daet, Camarines Norte, Chairs the Environmental Ethics Committee of UNESCO’s World Commission on the Ethics of Science and Technology and currently serves as President of the Asia-Pacific Philosophy Education Network for Democracy. He has recently been reappointed by the President of the Philippines as a Member of the UNESCO National Commission of the Philippines wherein he serves as Vice-Chair of its Human and Social Sciences Committee. He is on leave as Full Professor of Philosophy at Ateneo de Manila University.

Notes From The End Of The World As We Know It 11: Education at the End of Life as we Know It

by Agustin Martin Rodriguez

The other night, my children were having the most delightful and intelligent conversation. My son had not seen his sister in a while and he was so excited to be sitting at the table with her again. And, as usual, when he is excited or happy, the words flowed at a torrential rate. He was telling her about his latest favorite thing, which was to be read Greek myths to. As he was sharing various points of interest, he blurted out: “And you know, ate, how silly this Pygmalion was? He fell in love with his own statue. His own statue that he made! How ridiculous is that?” This was my just turned six year old son who, later on, with similar explicatives, explained how sad it was that Prometheus had to be punished for stealing fire for the people. With this, my son and his 20 year old ate engaged each other in a conversation on the tragic and ethical issues explored by these myths. In truth, that conversation wasn’t as profound as I’m making it sound. Most of it sounded more like: “I know! That’s so sad right?” and “Why would anyone open the box? That’s so dumb!” But the reason I thought that this conversation was so intelligent was not because my son knew his mythology. That’s not a sign of intelligence but of exposure to a certain culture because of one’s class. Rather, the reason I thought that this conversation was so smart, was because my six year old was able to pick up on and analyze the elements of high tragedy in the myths and comment on them from his own perspective.


I am starting with this story because my son is not so manifestly smart in school. You see he goes to a traditional pre-school where they are made to sit on a desk and follow a rather fixed curriculum. It’s a wonderful curriculum, mind you. But it is a very traditional one and pushes all the children to learn standard things according to a standard plan and does not really allow them to explore learning with their various intelligences. This is why my son, who can discuss Greek mythology and argue against the necessity of hell if God is a loving God, is not one of the smartest kids in school. For the longest time, they were even reporting that he did not complete sentences when at home he would be using words like “ridiculous” correctly and as part of complex sentences. Thus, my son hated school even if he loves seeing his teacher and classmates.

I remember when I was in school how I too was not very happy. More so than my son because, in the old days, teachers thought that threats and fear were their best tools to coax learning. So I always felt like a dunce because, despite the threats and the fear, I could never get the lessons as quickly or as rightly as the other kids. I was always in the middle, insignificant and never feeling particularly bright or capable. The kids on top had tutors, driven parents who either drilled their students constantly and/or brought food to school for the teachers on an almost daily basis. I was there to passively get knowledge drilled into my head. My happiest time in school was play time or, later, illicit smoking breaks. I don’t think traditional school suited me because one was either one of the herd who was asked simply to receive information and skills, or one excelled because one was driven and tutored to empty excellence. In the end it was never about discovery.

When I got to the university, all of a sudden, learning was so much fun and was so wonderful. It was so because, by this time, I had learned not to care about grades. I never actually did care about grades when I was in primary and secondary school because grades only made me feel mediocre and worthless. But when I reached college and started studying literature and philosophy, I was allowed to forget about grades. The less I cared about grades, the more I learned to learn and the higher my performance was evaluated—a fact that seems ironic to most, but not for people who know what learning is genuinely about.

I remember how it felt when I first discovered learning. It was when my literature and philosophy teachers first started talking about literary and philosophical works as living works to think about, to engage with, and build upon. Parmenides’ poem was a living testament that invited you to immerse in the first articulation of Being. Brilliantes offered a world of symbols and feelings that allowed you to explore your own. Later, my history teacher taught me that the pasyon was a framework for a whole revolution, and we could sift through the thought of Bonifacio and Jacinto for its traces. For the first time, we were invited to think and not to repeat. For the first time, dead people stopped being dead and we could see with them, feel with them, love and hate with them, imagine new worlds with them, and then we were invited to think our own thoughts in response. How wonderful was that? If study time in my youth was spent crying over homework that didn’t mean anything to me, this time I could not get enough of reading assigned texts in college. I believe that my daughter experienced the same kind of liberation when, from a traditional school, she was allowed to experience creative learning in a UN high school and later in the university where I teach. Learning, all of a sudden, was exhilarating because it was discovery and liberation. I was truly led out of the cave and I was basking in the living light. Certainly, this was not all the time because we had our share of uninspired teachers. But when the teachers were good, we soared.

Because of my own experience of liberation, I want to tell my son when he comes home from the school where he is not so smart not to worry. “
High school and grade school are meant to be like that—a cave of dark learning. There’s no other way to learn the basics but to sit and memorize and give back what your teachers want you to learn. Ate had to go through that and now she’s learning better things in college.” But then, I am beginning to hear about progressive schools. They say that in these schools, there are no grades and children are taught in a way that does not put a premium on what they can memorize but on how they can discover knowledge on their own. They are not stuffed into large classrooms where they are anonymous and uniform, but each one is encouraged to discover and realize their own special talents. In these schools, their learning rhythms are respected.

Just last month, my wife and I visited the open house of one such school. And we were so surprised to meet the children there. They seemed like such nerds. Not the annoying kind who were in your face because they needed to let you know what they knew so that you would think they were special, but the kind of children who were so obviously smart because they had learning and were excited by it. The kids did presentations on things they discovered in school and as they did, they spoke like a different breed from the children herded into traditional schools. They had knowledge that they genuinely understood—knowledge that empowered them because they knew how they got to it and why it matters. They seemed like products of a system that respected their creativity and capacity to participate in their own education. Because the school does not run according to competitiveness and the measure of grades, the students seemed to be into learning for the sake of wanting to know and to understand. They were independent learners that early. They obviously came to knowing because it was fun or it was important to them or it fascinated them and, therefore, they could and wanted to share it. There on the tables and floors of the school were eager children able to explain why ocean currents run the way they do, how plants depend on their roots for sustenance, and how proportions can be derived from a circle. A friend whose son studies in that school told me how her grade five son and his friends once obsessed about explaining the Euclid’s theorem and ended up spending some nights and days working on it.

I am excited for my son to study in a school like this after three years of dwelling in the cave. I can’t wait for his mind to be set free not just at home but also at school. I can’t wait for his independent, inquisitive, brave and adventurous mind to be affirmed by someone other than philosophy professors and his family. But more than this, I am excited for my son to be in a school where he will learn to be a leader in the age of the end of life as we know it.
As we come to the end of life as we know it, we will have to re-imagine civilization. Things we took for granted will no longer be the same. How we eat, how we manufacture, how we plant, how we are sheltered, and how we earn our living will have to change. We will have to rethink the meaning of development, of success, of the good life, of comfort, and of affluence. Who will lead us in this dreaming, this recreating? Will it be the children of the cave who were taught that learning is pleasing and conforming? Or will it be the children of the light who were taught to explore the wider world according to their passion and imagination? Will the children who had to be driven by competition, pressure, and the need for affirmation lead us? Or will it be the children who were empowered to discover, taught to cooperate in birthing knowledge, and inspired to challenge themselves to break boundaries?

My friends say that traditional schools are good for some children because strict structures make them flourish and progressive schools for others. I believe that. I am just glad that there are alternatives that will nourish the other children whose minds are dying to be set free because they will be facing a time when the structures we know will break down and better worlds will need to be built.

Notes from the end of life as we know it 10: Solidarity Economics or Spending for a Better Worldl

by Agustin Martin Rodriguez, Ph.D.

One of the most economically stagnant and impoverished sectors of the Philippine economy, and even of the world economy as a collective, is the agricultural sector. Here we always find the worst poverty. Often, the rural poor are in a world of economic stagnation where there are no roads leading to a life of stability: to a life where people are able to provide for their most basic needs. If you live in the areas where farming is the main source of income, it is most likely that you have no access to affordable credit. Most probably you are in debt with local traders or informal lenders and that every planting season you sink deeper into debt because the prices of input continue to rise up to three fold and the prices of your produce continue to fall up to one half of their value. Most probably you live in areas where fields flood when it rains and they dry up completely when it doesn’t. Surely you do not have crop insurance so that, when the crop fails, you dig yourself even deeper into the debt trap. You may not have access to electricity and you may need to spend much time and energy to access potable water. When you need to plant, you have to pawn your harvest in advance to a trader who will dictate the price of your produce aside from exacting a steep interest rate, and when you harvest, income is never enough for household expenses and food for the whole year. Thus, your children whose schools are far away, have difficulties completing primary school—not to mention the higher levels. The life of the farmer isn’t a joke as the old song says. It may not even be sustainable. For someone who is outside the reality of their lives, it is almost impossible to imagine how they navigate from day to day. But they persist despite the odds stacked against them by a world that has deprived them of opportunities for building a good human life.


The people of the soil are neglected by our economic support systems and yet it is from them that we derive our sustenance. They are also the keepers of our deepest traditions and the bearers of the wisdom of a life bound to the earth. It is in our interest to ensure that they flourish. However, governments do not fund them enough to respond to their needs and businesses are too short sighted to relate to them beyond exploitative and extractive relations. In order to genuinely help the farmers develop, they need to be assisted in ways that aim to reform the exploitative systems that keep them poor. We have to have relationships with these farmers that can give them a sustainable and livable income and provide them opportunities for them to build a good life. We have to be able to engage them in a way that restores justice and dignity to them. This is not because we want to be charitable in the usual condescending sense of the term. Rather because we want to do right by them who are providers of essential goods and services. If they are providers of the food that keeps us alive, we should want to ensure that they flourish. To ensure this, we will have to pay them a fair and sustainable price for their produce. We want to do right by them because as human beings, it is difficult for us to rest knowing that our lives are purchased at their expense. And it is true that our lives are purchased at their expense. We have food because they continue to plant for us even if they don’t earn a livable income from this. Because we want our food to be cheap, we overlook the fact that we don’t pay the full cost of production, i.e. that we don’t shoulder the cost of a living income for the farmer because they are too powerless to make us. The farmer bears the brunt of rising costs of fuels and fertilizers and the unpredictable weather because we insist on cheap food and the traders insist on keeping profit at a level that serves them. If we can stand in solidarity with farmers and do right by them, they can begin to build better lives. And when their lives improve, our lives improve because when the income of the poor improves, all other industries and services grow. It is in the interest of our flourishing as human beings and as economic actors that we stand in solidarity with the poor.

Social enterprises aim to rectify this exploitative relationship with the marginalized by realizing fair and just practices in their enterprises. Some practice fair trade which ensures that their trade with the poor assures these people of a fair price for their produce. There are enterprises that allow for capital from the mainstream economy to fund businesses that empower communities at the margins of the mainstream economy. One such economic enterprise is the Good Food Company.

This business was started by young Christians who belonged to a prayer community and felt the need to translate their faith into concrete acts of social responsibility. They decided that they should engage in a social enterprise that both supports the farmers in their quest for a good, human life and to support the organic farming movement—the latter for economic and environmental reasons. This they would do by providing the farmers access to capital, organic farming technology, and a sympathetic, enlightened market. They would help the organic farming movement along by adding to its adherents. They would also serve their supporters in this endeavor by creating an enlightened market composed of people who do not just consume but understand where their food is coming from and who are producing their food. Their subscribers would be introduced to the health benefits of organically produced vegetables and they will be given the opportunity to support environmentally responsible food production systems. Not only the farmer will gain from this arrangement by the consumer as well, because through this system they will be transformed from consumers who unwittingly exploit farmers. The enterprise will liberate their subscribers from being supporters of unjust economic and environmentally destructive practices and will allow them to become active participants in the building of an economic order that this ecologically sound and just.

How they do this is simple. A partner must subscribe to their vegetable delivery service for 12 weeks. For Php 400 a week one gets 3.5 kilos of vegetables that are organically grown. One is also invited to community events where one can meet the farmers, listen to their stories, and see how the farms are run. The partners of Good Food are also asked to make certain sacrifices. For instance, one has to pick up the produce every Saturday at certain pick up points. They have to temper their desire for shinny , extra leafy chemically treated vegetables and accept that organic and healthier vegetables look skinnier, duller and less crisp looking. Also, they must be used to getting the vegetables in season. Usually, one gets the same vegetables on a regular basis and one cannot dictate what one gets. The reason for this is because, if you follow the rhythms of nature, and do not pump the land and water systems with artificial fertilizers and pesticides, you cannot force off season vegetables to grow pretty and shinny. But in this way, one is able to become a more just consumer who can rectify one’s relationship to the earth and to one’s fellow human person.

It is without a doubt more difficult to be a just, earth friendly consumer. This is because the existing systems are set up to be unjust to the producer and to treat the consumer as an unthinking cog in the consumption machinery—a machinery that destroys our shared home and our capacity to engage each other as caring beings. But actually, companies like Good Food Co. should make it a little easier. The enterprise is already set up in such a way that it makes the consumer a person who can be just and responsible to the earth and to one’s fellow persons. The only sacrifice is having to pick up your vegetables, to be ready to eat less pretty vegetables and less variety of vegetables, to pay a higher, but fairer, price and to sometimes bear the costs of natural disasters by not receiving vegetables. A small price to pay for being allowed to take part in the rectification of unjust systems and improving lives—the farmers’ and one’s own.

So far, this enterprise has been sustainable but barely so. It is a struggle for them to get a sizeable number, something like 60, of subscribers per 8 week run. I though it would be easier for them because this group belongs to a nationwide Catholic movement which claims to espouse the values of justice and environmental responsibility. However, there are not getting substantial support from this community and are still relying on friends and family to commit to supporting their good work. People still prioritize what is convenient even if it means maintaining systems of injustice and destruction.

We are facing some of the gravest crises that our species has ever brought upon itself. Massive poverty and inequality do not only cause untimely deaths and unnecessary suffering, but also worldwide violence and instability. The environmental catastrophes we are facing are going to cause massive shifts in where we live, how we live, and how well we live. The work of social entrepreneurs like the Good Food Co. give us feasible alternatives to our exploitative and destructive economic systems. They also offer us alternative systems of production and distribution that not only preserve the earth but also build community. If we are to emerge whole from the end of the life as we know it, the more enterprising among us should explore even more ways to justly, environmentally, and creatively produce our needs. As for the rest of us, we should support these enterprises so that our spending and consumption becomes a means of rebuilding civilizations and rediscovering our better selves.

Notes from the End of Life as We Know It 9: The Church at the End of Life as We Know It

by Agustin Martin Rodriguez

It is a difficult time to be a Catholic. I find it hard to identify myself with the Church because of the way its apologists are conducting themselves these days. Firstly, there was the whole debate on reproductive health. I believe that many of the people who were advocating for a reproductive health bill, Catholic or not, were acting out of a genuine desire to preserve life. Many of the people I knew who felt so strongly for a reproductive health bill were men and women who spent decades of their lives helping poor women find ways to realize their potential as persons despite the crushing weight of unjust poverty. They are fighting hard for the passage of some kind of reproductive health system because in their conscience, in the very depths of their reason, they judged that such a system would enable women to be come better persons and mothers—if not wives.

Thus, I found it so painful to see how official and unofficial defenders of the Church attacked the persons who, in their best judgment, thought that the reproductive health bill was the best way to save the lives of suffering women and children. Instead of engaging these men and women of good will, the outspoken apologists of the church launched an attack against the proponents of the RH system. There were veiled threats about excommunication. Those who believed in an RH system were labeled haters of life, of families, of children. Lines were drawn so harshly that dialogue was almost impossible. Clearly, this antagonism was first created by the angry Church apologists because they made so many venomous statements. And of course I understand where they were coming from. In their own conscience, they saw that the bill could propagate a prophylactic mentality, promote casual sex especially among the young, and cause the deaths of innocent, unborn children. And they could very well be right. All this time of conflict, they have been projecting themselves in the media as angry, intolerant, self-righteous hounds of heaven who are ready to condemn and excommunicate anyone who did not agree with them.

And then this CCP exhibit comes into the public sphere. It was meant to be offensive and so it did offend. Personally, I agree with the CCP board member who said that the exhibit was aimed not to offend God or to desecrate the Holy but to reflect on the kitschification of iconography. However, I do understand how the placing of a penis on the cross may have been an unnecessary crossing of some line. And often shock art can be adolescent and lacking in profound insight. But again, the reactions from the protectors of the Church are so rabid. There was the immediate labeling of people as blasphemers and anti-Christs. (One logic went like this: They are the anti-Christ because they are anti Christ.) However, the CCP board clearly acted with the best intention to promote the best art. Bad judgment or not, they did not deserve to be labeled the anti-Christs (if a plural could be made of that) or intentional blasphemers out to desecrate all that is holy. Was there no room for dialogue between people with the best intentions and good will on this issue?

Why were the Church defenders so rabid and violent in their hearts? Perhaps it is because they feel that God is being hurt in all this. But this is what we are perhaps forgetting in all these debates: God is bigger than all of us. If the RH Bill is wrong, God will find a way to make it right no matter the outcome of the debates and the passage of the law. If the controversial exhibit did offend God, God can absorb more mud than any iconoclastic artist can fling at him. We shouldn’t worry so much about God and His agenda that we resort to the ways of hate and violence. Because more hurtful to the building of the kingdom than the passage of a potentially dangerous, life-threatening law or the blaspheming of Jesus’ holy image is the losing of faith of the people of the building the kingdom in love. Today, more and more, the people of the Church are presenting themselves as a rabid, intolerant, reactionary, and spiteful. They are coming off as desperate to keep their influence and power over the people—so desperate that they will use the tools of anti-love to achieve what they believe love calls them to do.

People of good will are now being turned away from the Church as a home of their hearts or as a partner in their service to the people of God who are suffering much from pain and sorrow. How can people of good will desire to partner with the Church or draw energy from her if her energy is so negative and draining? Instead of being the beacon of love in the world, the people of the Church have been projecting a harsh, unappealing light.

This is very unfortunate because I remember that it was the Church's face of love that made me want to remain a Catholic. Until I was in my third year of college, I was an agnostic. I wasn't sure if there was a god and I couldn't reject the possibility outright because I had all this Catholic guilt and fear in me. I'm sure most of us remember how we were made to believe in God—there was always a mixture of “believe or be condemned to the fires of hell and Mama Mary loves you so much she'll cry if you don't love Jesus.” However, there came a point in my life when I realized that much of the evil around me was perpetrated by Catholics. The hacienderos who stole land or paid their kasama's an unfair and non-living wage were Catholic. The politicians who supported Marcos and were even the backbone of his dictatorship were the best friends of the Church. The businessmen who broke-up unions and denied their workers their just wages were the ministers of the Eucharist. Even the leaders of the Church seemed to support these perpetrators of injustice and suffering by turning a blind eye to the evil and even gaining in wealth and luxury from this evil. For the longest time, I did not want to belong to this Church and was just waiting to gain the momentum or strength of will to actually reject it and transcend the guilt and fear that this rejection would entail.

The other reason I did not leave the Church so easily was because I wanted to give myself a chance to find God if God indeed existed. In my heart I thought that if there was indeed a God and believing was such a good thing, why is it that the people who believe in him are the worst people I knew? But still, there might be a God and if there was, it was worth finding out. So I stayed in the Church and went to mass because if there was a God, He would probably manifest here.

I had the good fortune of going to a Jesuit university where good Jesuits worked. Here, I met Fr. Ferriols who showed that being a Catholic and being wise were not necessary contradiction in terms. He showed me that the wisdom of the human person ought to lead to an awakening to the Holy and that the gentle quest for truth could lead to the opening to God's presencing. I met Fr. Green who taught me that you ought to call God love for that is what God is. Then (then) Brother Danny Huang taught me that you cannot call yourself a Christian if you did not love God's poor and fight for justice—that being a Christian means establishing the kingdom of God in all you do. Fr. Joel Tabora taught me how to live that loving struggle for God's people and what it meant to concretely build God's kingdom on earth. These were the men of the Church who in my youth taught me that the Church is about love and justice, that it was about wisdom and hope. These were the men whose loving presencing told me to stay—to follow and see.

Because I stayed, because they taught me to look for God where love lay, I found God. Quietly, undramatically, but certainly, I found God in my silences as the embrace that overwhelms, as the joy that wells up, as the calm that says all will be well. And even today, when God is more silent, less presencing, I cannot but believe that Love is for Love was too real to deny.

If the Church genuinely believes that it is God's presence of earth, it must be the presence of love—not vindictiveness, or hate, or anger, or desperation, or violence, or pettiness, or venom. The Church must be love for God is love. Does it want more unborn children to be saved, then it must go among the people who sleep in the streets, who scavenge in the city's decay, who try to harvest in fields that alternate between flooding and drying. They must be there in love’s listening and witnessing so that men will not force their wives to have more children than their wives’ bodies can afford and those that oppress the poor learn to serve God in justice and not just through donations and the sponsoring of Church events. If it wants the lay persons to venerate Christ and honor Mary then its priests and nuns should invite them by showing how such veneration brings forth people with hearts who open to embrace all who dwell in sorrow and loneliness and despair.

In my son's school, every special Mary day, the kids are all made to pray the rosary. For about 45 minutes, 3 to 7 year old children are made to sit and recite words that they seem not to understand or appreciate. The point of course is to teach them to pray and instill the love of Mary in their hearts. In every single one of these sessions, my 5 year old son cries, or he needs to sit with one of the helping misses so that he doesn't feel too disturbed by the proceedings. I thought that my son only acted this way with during rosary days because he was bored or became restless out of his wits. If I were five and I had to sit through 45 minutes of words that did not mean anything to me recited in a toneless monotony, that is probably how I would react. However, I think, aside from that, there is another reason why he gets this way. One day, out of the blue while we were driving somewhere, he asked me if there really were fires in hell. I asked him why he asked. Because , he said, he wanted to know if he would be sent there. My poor son, I thought, his early education into God is through the fires of hell and the valley of tears when it should be love and joy. He continued, where are the people who killed Jesus? Are they in the fires of hell? Because he said, if God is in our hearts and everyone is in God’s heart, why are there people in the fires of hell?

This is not exactly what I told him. But it went something like this, and this is what I learned sitting in attendance to the Love that is in the universe. There are no fires of Hell if the fires of hell means that there is a place where bad people are punished and made to suffer unspeakable horrors by a vindictive god. No one is separated from the love of God. We will always be in God's heart as He will always be in ours. Sadly, some people choose not to love God and turn away from God's love. Despite that, God never turns these people away or rejects them. And He always invites them in love. But if because of the hardness of their hearts they insist on living selfishly or destructively, and they refuse to open to God's love that is flowing toward them, then that is hell. To be in hell is to be in a state where one can see God is all his splendor and love reach out to you and you cannot open your heart to be touched by him because you chose to be that way. That is the suffering of the sinner. And none of it is caused by God because God does hold us in His heart in love even if we are sinners who refuse God's love.

And I ask, if God is so much love, where is all this anger and condemnation from the lovers of God coming from? Are the defenders of the faith channeling God's love by their violence against the other persons of good will? Did they not consider that people who don't agree with them may be acting for the greater good and that the Church may benefit of the insight of others whose hearts are likewise embraced by God's love?

This is why I am so bothered by the way the Church (through its leadership) is projecting itself in public: to know love, you must be opened to love. The only education, before the memorized prayers, before the worship in sacred shrines and the falling before images, before the memorization of the complex doctrines, is the education of the heart to open to love—to see love where it shows, to feel love where it touches, to hear love where it calls, and to dwell in love where it blossoms. A rabid and vindictive Christendom can only overwhelm the delicate presencing of love. Instead of leading confused and doubting hearts to love, they may be sowing doubt with regard to the transcendent presence of love. I almost missed the call of love having grown up with a Church that focused too much on telling me how sinful I was and how I was at the precipice of the fires of hell. This approach hardened me to the love that seemed so contradictory. This angry, self-righteousness projected by the Church against over the top shock artists and men and women of good will trying their best to empower poor women and children and their denying baptism to the children of unwed parents and their calling women without children incomplete is certainly the noise that counters love.

My education in God, the proper education that opened me to God, was an education in love. Memorized doctrine, the repetitious worship of saints, the contemplation of the fires of hell did not lead me to God. They filled my heart with doubt. The passionate witnessing of men and women of love led me to love and then to embrace the doctrine. Perhaps our bishops should lead us in that kind of education.

We are at the end of life as we know it. We need to learn to build a new order of love because we will face civilization changing crises. Who will lead us in this task of rebuilding? This is a terrific opportunity for the Church because it can influence the new world that is emerging so that this mirrors the Kingdom. But who will flock to it when it is so uncomforting? Who will partner with it when it is so bitter? Who will build with it when its words tear down? The Church can and the Church must for it can lead by gathering the energies of charity for the tasks of the Kingdom. The Bishops called for days of prayer and penitence. That is so apt for we must really repent our ways as a Church that has forgotten that Love calls us to presence love and to have faith that love will overcome. This does not mean that we should be complacent in the face of potential evil but it calls us to use the ways of love in faith for only love will save us.

Aquino, Murad, and Levinas

The great thing about being trained in philosophy is it has equipped me with conceptual frameworks that help me quickly understand complex events, especially those that may seem naïve or foolish but are actually profoundly groundbreaking and game-changing. This was my experience last Friday when I first heard (read actually—as I saw it first in Twitter) that President Benigno Aquino III traveled to Tokyo, Japan to meet with Chairman Al Haj Murad of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Being intimately familiar with the Mindanao peace process, I immediately saw the serious implications of the President’s gesture and, for a fleeting moment, I wondered whether President Aquino had lost his mind.

This moment of doubt came and went very fast because right away the Tokyo meeting reminded me of a philosopher named Emmanuel Levinas. I have been reading and teaching the philosophy of this Jewish thinker for 25 years now, including mentoring seminarians who have chosen to write on his philosophy for their masteral theses. But never had I seen as concrete an illustration of his philosophy as in the encounter between Aquino and Murad. In particular, I was reminded by the emphasis Levinas gave to the Face-to-Face encounter, that moment when human beings see each other as Other—not to be hated, mutilated, or killed, but to be compassionate to, in fact to love and serve.

Two weeks ago, I attended the doctoral dissertation defense of a good friend and philosophy classmate Angelli Tugado, who wrote on “The Proximity of the ‘Third’ as the Ethical Basis for Levinas’s Idea of Culture”, and in her opening statement, she quoted from Levinas: “The third party looks at me in the eyes of the Other—language is justice. It is not that there first be the face, and then the being it manifests or expresses would concern himself with justice; the epiphany of the face qua face opens humanity.”

The above-quoted words capture the essence of the Aquino-Murad encounter. Tokyo was a meeting not just of leaders but of two human beings. While they represent big constituencies and play political roles, in that moment of their encounter, Aquino and Murad became two individuals reaching out in conversation, opening their humanity to each other, and weighing each other’s sincerity and good will. As a veteran negotiator and mediator of many social and policy conflicts, here and abroad, I know there is no better basis for future agreements and relationships than the Face-to-Face encounter that Aquino and Murad had in Tokyo.



The Tokyo meeting came at a time when there were already questions about the government’s sincerity and political will in pushing for permanent peace in Mindanao. The government was already delayed in delivering its peace proposal to the MILF. President Aquino was silent about the peace negotiations in his State-of-the-Nation Address, leading many to wonder if there was an impasse. While I have a very high level of trust in the government negotiators (especially its chairman, Dean Marvic Leonen) and in Aquino’s Peace Adviser, Secretary Teresita Deles, I was worried, too.

The fact is that achieving peace in Mindanao would be difficult. From the Tripoli Agreement in 1976 to the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain fiasco in 2008, the peace process is a long history of betrayals and failures. There have of course been advances that should be appreciated: (a) The 1996 peace agreement with the Moro National Liberation Front, while faced with many implementation issues, has not been abrogated; (b) The MILF has abandoned the goal of separatism and independence, a non-trivial development; and (c) The MOA-AD experience yielded many lessons, including the limitations of what the government could offer in the negotiating table and the importance of consultations with all Mindanao stakeholders.

The Aquino-Murad meeting is a breath of fresh air, a shot in the arm to the peace process. The President’s gesture is not a treasonous act as an unnamed diplomat supposedly called it, or an ill-advised move according to one senator. Tokyo was a pragmatic and sensible attempt to move the process forward by establishing an environment of trust and confidence between the parties. Leonen, defending the President’s decision to meet with someone who is not his counterpart, said: “The President will meet with any Filipino anywhere in the world, in the planet, especially if he is serious enough to talk about an agenda which is important for the country.”



There are of course tough negotiations ahead. Even for someone like me, who believes constitutional change is good and necessary to address some MILF demands, it is clear that a change in governance systems (e.g. a creation of a sub-state as demanded by the MILF) targeted only at Mindanao or some parts of it have no chance of being accepted by Congress or in a national or Mindanao-wide plebiscite. The better option is an overhaul of our national governance system to allow local governments everywhere in the country to freely affiliate each other in whatever way they want, including up to the level of states. I call this federalism “built from the ground up” and not imposed by legal prescription from above. But this is probably not doable in the next five years, and certainly beyond President Aquino to commit as it requires congressional concurrence and a national plebiscite. The vast powers of the Philippine president, however, allow the government to offer many concessions in the negotiations. I hope that the MILF, whose negotiators are brilliant and practical idealists, acknowledge the hard facts and negotiate on this basis.

As a Mindanawon, I consider the Mindanao peace process a personal matter. In fact, the Aquino-Murad meeting helped me remember a forgotten childhood memory. When I was growing up in Cagayan de Oro, when I was in grade school in the 1960s, there used to be an apartment block a street away from our house. That block, painted in white (“balay puti”), was occupied by Moro families. Throughout my childhood, a happy one I must say, I was afraid of that house and the people, including children my age, who lived there. There were even a couple of times when my friends and I had stone-throwing fights with our Moro neighbors. I was already a teenager and on my last year of high school when I summoned the courage to approach balay puti and say hello to those neighbors. I have always regretted waiting that long, conscious of the friendships I never had because of my bigotry. But once I had that Face-to-Face encounter, never again did I fear engaging with my Moro brother or sister, and I am definitely the better for it.

A peace agreement that leads to a divided Mindanao and country is not the result we all want. Indeed, as in all peace negotiations, ultimately, the process should end with what is doable, pushing the envelope, yes, but not too much that it tears it apart. In the next five years, for the remainder of Aquino’s term, why don’t we just work together to achieve exactly that? And let us start as Aquino did with Murad, and as I experienced when I was a teenager, by engaging with each other Face-to-Face.

E-mail: Tonylavs@gmail.com
Facebook: Tonylavs@gmail.com
Twitter: tonylavs

*all pictures are taken from the net and are assumed to be in the public domain.

Notes from the End of Life as We Know It 8: Repentance and Rebirth at the End of Life as We Know It

by Agustin Martin Rodriguez

I once heard from a report my students gave that there is such a thing as the autogeddon theory. They said some scientists did the math and believed that we have reached a point of no return with regard to bringing about destructive changes to the earth because of rising population, massive demand for energy and water, the strain of our consumption on natural resources and habitats, and the destructive changes in the climate we are causing. It was never clear to me where they got this autogeddon theory because they were not sure themselves. However, in the subsequent years, it became clearer to all of us that no matter how much we conserve, no matter how much we reduce our population growth, we have irrevocably damaged the earth and we have already brought about massive destruction to nature. It is also clear that we will continue to do so in more massive levels when the full effects of global warming kick in.

As it stands, we have caused the extinction of more species than any natural event. We have raised the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere by 100 times since the start of the industrial revolution and there is no end to that increase in sight. It seems that it will take centuries “for global processes to reach equilibrium.” Even if we cut GDP by 2% per developed country today, we will still raise the amount of CO2 produced by industrial processes. Scientists already estimated that we have overshot the world’s capacity to sustainably support our existence by 120 percent and still we keep growing by about 200,000 people per day. It seems clearer now more than ever that we are destroying our habitable world at unprecedented rates and that we have long passed the point of no return. This means that no matter how much we conserve, reuse, recycle, reduce, live responsibly, consume less, and live with the least impact on the earth that our present state of development affords, we will never be able to restore the world to its prior state when it could sustain human life seemingly indefinitely. It’s just too late. We have eaten and polluted ourselves out of a nourishing home and created this fragile habitat.

How did we get here? There are simply too many of us and a rich minority of us are living grandly wasteful lives. A simple fact from biologist Walter Dodds. Each hamburger requires 3028 litters of water to produce and a full meal requires 5591 liters of water. Imagine how much water that is when you multiply those thousands of liters to the billions of hamburgers Macdonalds and the millions Jollibee have served. Now imagine how many millions of people actually get to eat full meals. Certainly they are not the majority of the world’s population but they are a considerable minority. Now imagine the hectares of land used to grow the corn that feeds the cows and the hundreds of species that had to give up their habitat for our burgers. To think, most of our meals and all of these burgers aren’t even good for us. And because these things we consume aren’t good for us, imagine how much governments and pharmaceuticals spend on research and development, production and distribution of the pills and teas that try to burn away the burgers we shouldn’t have eaten. Yet, his is but a fraction of our impact on the earth. Our continuous production of electronics, low and high end consumer goods, fashion, and luxury items at every level of the social strata has caused us to destroy, pollute, and deplete habitats and resources. Because we produce so much waste and require so much material to sustain us, and because there are simply too many of us, we are destroying the nourishing rock that brought us to life.

So what do we do? The more clearly the data emerges, the more clearly it seems that we have to enact radical changes in the way we live just to make sure that our home doesn’t become too hostile to us. To put it quite simply, we must repent and reform. For those of us who have realized our being in the world in such a way that has been hurtful to society and to our fellow citizens, we expect some kind of remorse—we expect some king of awakening and realization that their way of being in the world has to be reformed or realized in another way. Well, we have acted badly. Therefore, we must be expected to rethink the way we are being in the world. The way we have been for the last century, we have lived like selfish, inconsiderate, demanding, greedy, self-absorbed, arrogant, needy, and gluttonous brats who have an exaggerated sense of entitlement. It’s as if everything in this world existed for our sole pleasure and that our sole purpose is to exploit everything that will let us. Only a few of us even wonder if we were hurting other species, if we have a right to destroy their worlds, or if we should make amends for our boorish behavior. We have lived on this world like parasites without a capacity to regulate our consumption thereby causing the death of our host. We have behaved badly and have come to the end of life as we know it.

As I have always said, this moment is a tremendous opportunity for growth. However, we can only begin to grow and realize our better selves when we first acknowledge that we have realized a way of being in this world that is careless and destructive. However, most of us aren’t even close to recognizing our failings. In Barack Obama’s inauguration speech, the great American hope of this generation, the world leader who people thought was genuinely progressive and understood that significant changes had to be realized in their country’s way of living and dealing with the world and the environment, said, “We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.” Of course he was delivering his required rhetoric against terrorism. However, I am deeply offended by this notion that the Americans will not apologize for their way of life. Why not? It is their mad consumerist dream that filled our shared atmosphere with more than their share of greenhouse gases, that caused the floods that destroyed the lives of many people in my city, that has caused and continues to cause environmental degradation in their quest for oil, that has bullied my nation into an unfair world economic system that keeps my people poor. They won’t repent for any of that harm? They won’t apologize for their way of life that makes my children’s future uncertain and clouded over by the darkest clouds we can imagine? I think they and those that created this world order do owe us an apology. And we should repent our complicity in their destructive self-realization.

The sad and seemingly hopeless fact is that only a few people understand that the way we live is not good for us. It is a lifestyle that treats the world as a resource to use and consume as, what Martin Heidegger would refer to, as standing reserve. We look at the world as a thing waiting to be used. Its various habitats and myriad life forms are but mere resources to tap as we think of more complex ways to feed and amuse ourselves, to make our selves feel alive and immortal. Nothing, not even our fellow human beings, are thought of as individual and separate beings who have an existence that bears its own value other than that we confer. Nothing exists for us unless it is something useful or amusing or consumable. And because we have seen the world in the light of its status as standing reserve, we have refashioned it in such a way that it exists according to our demands. Our jungles are no longer primordial, our animals no longer wild, our skies no longer a transcendent sheltering dome, our seas no longer an impenetrable depth—all are touched by men with a heavy hand that cannot help but alter and destroy what it touches. And so, Mr. Obama and all the rest of humanity—especially man-kind—we have much to apologize for and much to be sorry about. We have treated our world and our fellow living beings with such utter disregard that not only have we fouled our own nest, we have driven other beings to extinction. What kind of species does that make us? The kind that no one with any sense would want to move into their neighborhood. Unfortunately, we have taken over the planet.

It is time then to admit that we have somehow come to a point when our drive to a more successful way of being in the world has become a bane to others and to ourselves. We have realized our human potential in such a way that it has become harmful and dangerous to others. We only have to admit that our way of being has not been desirable so that we can move on and become better persons. Unless we can come to that realization, we will continue to be the bad neighbor, the stupid parasite, and we will drive ourselves into extinction.

How then do we repent? Max Scheler explores the experience of repentance in his essay “Repentance and Rebirth.” Here he shows how repentance is an act born of the realization that one has concretized oneself in a way that violates the order of values, or in a way that violates or fails to realize the highest potential of my self. Somehow, perhaps because of the presence of a model person that allows me to intuit my fullest potential, or more simply because I am confronted with the pain I have caused others with my way of being, I realize that I have realized my worst possible self and that I need to renew my commitment to a more creative way of being in the world that values myself and others. According to Scheler, and I believe this is true, there is an aspect of grace in repentance.

All of us, in our finitude, can only see the world according to our own system of values, according to our own rationalities. The reason we do what we do is because we think that this is the good thing to do based on our own way of understanding and valuing ourselves and others. We engage in this orgy of consumption because we thought it was the best for us—we still do. No one set out to foul the nest. We only wanted to improve our lives by getting the most while paying the least, to gain the most pleasure with the least pain. We set to have children because it was a joy and an assurance of continued existence. We built our cities because it felt like the safest way of living. We are structured by the prevailing systems of valuation that define an ethos. This ethos tells us that our way of being in the world is the most beneficial and the truest way of realizing our humanity. To realize that our way of seeing and engaging the world is actually perverted is not easy because we can only see things through our own system of values. It takes the coming of another who bears another way of being or seeing, the advent of disaster, or even just the quiet moment of sudden insight to awaken us. Best of all, it takes the miracle, rare but not unheard of, of seeing myself for an instant through the eyes of the transcendent source of the good to shatter my certainties about who I am and awaken me to the need to realize my better self. That is a rare act of grace, but every day we are challenged by others to rethink our priorities, to reevaluate our desires, to reexamine our certainties. If we are open to that grace, we can awaken to our possibilities.

In our time, in this suitable time, we are confronted by our own folly. There is no greater mirror to our souls than our ravaged world. Thusly, we are forced to confront our false conceptions and valuations of reality. The main reason for this is because we will not survive otherwise. So we can say that we are being pushed to repent our destructive way of being. Global warming is the grace that prods us to repentance. The only proper human response to such an awakening is to embrace it. Without embracing this and without repenting, we will always be caught in the ethos of our destructive selves. A destructive way of being is like a rail that keeps us running in a particular direction unless we can break from it. Thus repentance is like a disaster of sorts—a derailing that wrenches us out of our destructive self-realization so that we can reevaluate our being in the world.

Of course there will be the sorrow one feels for having to see one’s self this way. It can never be pleasant and can even be debilitating. One can feel hopeless about one’s self and fall deeper into one’s destructiveness because one may not have the will or imagination to see one’s self other than this negative realization of personhood. However, only when one embraces one’s brokenness, when one accepts that he has lived for so long according to this distorted realization of the self, can one begin to pick one’s self up and realize one’s self otherwise. Until there is no reevaluation, acceptance of one’s shortcomings, and repentance of one’s patterns of concretization, there will be no potential for rebirth. But the first step is humility.

Humility calls for our acceptance of our finitude and our brokenness in our capacity to realize our potentials as persons. If it is grace that awakens us to awaken to our destructive selves, perhaps it is also grace that will draw us to our greater potentials as persons. This time at the end of life as we know it, there is a call for rebirth. There is an urgent call for humanity to collectively awaken to more authentic ways of being in the world. What can realize such an awakening? Perhaps if there are enough of what Scheler calls model persons, i.e. bearers of systems of values that will shape a more creative way of being in the world, then we will be able to understand how we can achieve our potential. Perhaps, if more people are engaged in the task of reimagining our civilization, we will be able to pull ourselves together and build more just and less consuming economies. Perhaps, if it is not too late and if we are not in the early phases of our autogeddon.

But whether it is too late or not, we must repent and find ourselves reborn to a new way of being in the world.