It’s not exactly a win; in fact the dispositive portion of the Decision says all the Petitions are granted only in part and dismissed as to all other respects. But at least something came out of it.
I’m referring to the Supreme Court’s Decision in the CPR case, which I argued before the Supreme Court En Banc on April 4, promulgated yesterday.
The Court upheld the law, Batas Pambansa Blg. 880, which is Marcos vintage, but struck down the press release, i.e., CPR. For me, it was a foregone conclusion that CPR would be struck down but I was more interested in striking down Batas Pambansa Blg. 880. Unfortunately the Court did not see it my way.
What is interesting about the CPR Decision is this part:
“In sum, this Court reiterates its basic policy of upholding the fundamental rights of our people, especially freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. In several policy addresses, Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban has repeatedly vowed to uphold the liberty of our people and to nurture their prosperity. He said that “in cases involving liberty, the scales of justice should weigh heavily against the government and in favor of the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the dispossessed and the weak. Indeed, laws and actions that restrict fundamental rights come to the courts with a heavy presumption against their validity. These laws and actions are subjected to heightened scrutiny.”
For this reason, the so-called calibrated preemptive response policy has no place in our legal firmament and must be struck down as a darkness that shrouds freedom. It merely confuses our people and is used by some police agents to justify abuses. On the other hand, B.P. No. 880 cannot be condemned as unconstitutional; it does not curtail or unduly restrict freedoms; it merely regulates the use of public places as to the time, place and manner of assemblies. Far from being insidious, “maximum tolerance” is for the benefit of rallyists, not the government. The delegation to the mayors of the power to issue rally “permits” is valid because it is subject to the constitutionally-sound “clear and present danger” standard.
In this Decision, the Court goes even one step further in safeguarding liberty by giving local governments a deadline of 30 days within which to designate specific freedom parks as provided under B.P. No. 880. If, after that period, no such parks are so identified in accordance with Section 15 of the law, all public parks and plazas of the municipality or city concerned shall in effect be deemed freedom parks; no prior permit of whatever kind shall be required to hold an assembly therein. The only requirement will be written notices to the police and the mayor’s office to allow proper coordination and orderly activities.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED in part, and respondents, more particularly the Secretary of the Interior and Local Governments, are DIRECTED to take all necessary steps for the immediate compliance with Section 15 of Batas Pambansa No. 880 through the establishment or designation of at least one suitable freedom park or plaza in every city and municipality of the country. After thirty (30) days from the finality of this Decision, subject to the giving of advance notices, no prior permit shall be required to exercise the right to peaceably assemble and petition in the public parks or plazas of a city or municipality that has not yet complied with Section 15 of the law. Furthermore, Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR), insofar as it would purport to differ from or be in lieu of maximum tolerance, is NULL and VOID and respondents are ENJOINED to REFRAIN from using it and to STRICTLY OBSERVE the requirements of maximum tolerance. The petitions are DISMISSED in all other respects, and the CONSTITUTIONALITY of Batas Pambansa No. 880 is SUSTAINED.”
What the Court essentially ordered is that all local governments all over the country must designate freedom parks within 30 days, otherwise the “no permit, no rally” provision in the law, sec. 4, becomes inoperative. Essentially, the right to freedom of assembly has become subject to a “resolutory” condition of sorts.
That’s why it’s a weird decision, from where I sit.
Also, the Court said the law was not vague nor overbroad and that it was not a content-based restriction to freedom of assembly and expression. Of course, I disagreed with this in my Memorandum to the Court but, hey, you lose some and then you lose some more.
It’s the latest thing nowadays—a “win-win” formula for cases of transcendental public importance; for example the recent EO 464 case. I’m not sure I like this trend of decision-making of the Court right now—I’d rather lose and know why I lost rather than lose and not be able to figure out why I lost, which is what these “win-win” cases actually are not able to tell me.
In the meantime, the CPR Decision, particularly that part on Freedom Parks, is going to raise more questions than answers, particularly for May 1—where rallies are traditional and expected. I would not be exaggerating if I say that this won’t be the last we will hear of BP 880 being challenged in the Court; hopefully, the next time the Court sees the light.
My Ties, Tethers, Anchors and Roots. These keep me grounded but also allow me to dream.
April 26, 2006
April 20, 2006
Venetian blinded
Fiction from Faith.
That is what the forthcoming Philippine release of The Da Vinci Code expects us to think about. So too the recent revelation that there is what is called a Gospel of Judas—note it is not the Gospel According to Judas but the Gospel of Judas. The title alone tells everything.
In DVC, the title tells us of a code that comes from Venice—not from Leonarda Da Vinci. That, by itself, should tell us to take what it says with a large heaping pinch of salt. Any reference to Leonardo Da Vinci should be to “Leonardo” and not “Da Vinci” as the former is his name, the latter is a reference to his roots—Venice. At least, the Ninja turtles got it right. So, how do we look at DVC? As a work of fiction, as a work of suspense, as a novel—but certainly not as truth nor as gospel truth. Will I watch it? Sure, I like Tom Hanks and I love a good suspense movie. Will it affect me and my faith? NO. On matters of faith, I turn to God’s Word not to Dan Brown or to any other “gospel” he may be referring to.
The so-called Gospel of Judas also tells us a lot by the title alone. Gospel means “good news”; that’s why the four Gospels in the Bible are “Gospels According to” and not “Gospels of.” The four Gospel writers clearly point to one direction only—the good news comes from Christ and the good news is salvation. So, there is a Gospel of Judas; that means its essentially a brief for the man who betrayed Jesus and is intended to propagate the “good news” about Judas, not about Jesus and his salvific love. Would I read it? Given a chance and assuming someone translates it into understandable English, sure. Will it affect my faith? NO. On matters of faith, I turn to God’s Word, not to Judas and his “good news.”
These are simplistic ways of insisting on our faith. But, for me, we have to start somewhere and differentiating fact from fiction is the most logical starting point. Let’s not ban DVC or any the supposed Gospel of Judas—doing that will simply pique curiosity. Let the movie be shown but insist that it is a work of fiction and not faith and encourage the faithful to know the difference—at the pulpit and also in schools, forums or any other gathering of the faithful.
If you want to watch DVC and be entertained for two hours, go and watch it. But if you want to know God, seek Him out in prayer, seek Him out in reading His Word, seek Him out in the Lives of the Saints, seek Him out in the lives of the many men and women He sends to touch our lives—hopefully, these will take more than two hours and perhaps even a lifetime.
That is what the forthcoming Philippine release of The Da Vinci Code expects us to think about. So too the recent revelation that there is what is called a Gospel of Judas—note it is not the Gospel According to Judas but the Gospel of Judas. The title alone tells everything.
In DVC, the title tells us of a code that comes from Venice—not from Leonarda Da Vinci. That, by itself, should tell us to take what it says with a large heaping pinch of salt. Any reference to Leonardo Da Vinci should be to “Leonardo” and not “Da Vinci” as the former is his name, the latter is a reference to his roots—Venice. At least, the Ninja turtles got it right. So, how do we look at DVC? As a work of fiction, as a work of suspense, as a novel—but certainly not as truth nor as gospel truth. Will I watch it? Sure, I like Tom Hanks and I love a good suspense movie. Will it affect me and my faith? NO. On matters of faith, I turn to God’s Word not to Dan Brown or to any other “gospel” he may be referring to.
The so-called Gospel of Judas also tells us a lot by the title alone. Gospel means “good news”; that’s why the four Gospels in the Bible are “Gospels According to” and not “Gospels of.” The four Gospel writers clearly point to one direction only—the good news comes from Christ and the good news is salvation. So, there is a Gospel of Judas; that means its essentially a brief for the man who betrayed Jesus and is intended to propagate the “good news” about Judas, not about Jesus and his salvific love. Would I read it? Given a chance and assuming someone translates it into understandable English, sure. Will it affect my faith? NO. On matters of faith, I turn to God’s Word, not to Judas and his “good news.”
These are simplistic ways of insisting on our faith. But, for me, we have to start somewhere and differentiating fact from fiction is the most logical starting point. Let’s not ban DVC or any the supposed Gospel of Judas—doing that will simply pique curiosity. Let the movie be shown but insist that it is a work of fiction and not faith and encourage the faithful to know the difference—at the pulpit and also in schools, forums or any other gathering of the faithful.
If you want to watch DVC and be entertained for two hours, go and watch it. But if you want to know God, seek Him out in prayer, seek Him out in reading His Word, seek Him out in the Lives of the Saints, seek Him out in the lives of the many men and women He sends to touch our lives—hopefully, these will take more than two hours and perhaps even a lifetime.
April 18, 2006
"Second rate, trying hard. . . "
As far as political gimmicks go, its not even original. The first dictator did it—several times. I’m referring to commuting sentences of convicts on a special occasion. Marcos did it on his birthday, on Imelda’s birthday, on the anniversary of the new society—just so that he could put a benevolent sheen to his dictatorship.
What did that wise man say about old dogs and new tricks.
The current dictator has taken a page from the old one, which somehow leads me to admire Imee Marcos’s riposte about the current dictator being a “second rate, trying hard copycat” for its candor, if not its media-impact (One would wish that neither Imee nor the current dictator would try so hard though.)
The Easter message of the dictator mentioned a new policy of commutation of all death sentences. Now, all the legal scholars—acknowledged, unacknowledged, self-proclaimed or otherwise—have spoken at length about the commutations being flawed constitutionally because: 1. they trench on the judicial power to review death sentences, 2. they are broad and sweeping and may impair the rights of the truly innocent on death row (yes, there are those) and 3. commutations cannot be given on a blanket basis because they would involve only those sentenced by final judgment to death and would have to be determined on individual merits on a case to case basis. So I won’t bother too much with these.
What I do mind is the dictator using lives to simply toady up to the Catholic church and get the church’s nod on charter change. If the dictator had suddenly come to an epiphany in the cool mountain air of Baguio, I am certain that the Holy Spirit would have told her—just have the death penalty law repealed. Now, that would underscore a serious commitment to the sanctity of life. Oh, and I’m sure in the next whisper, the Holy Spirit would have told her—forget about charter change and just resign.
Unfortunately, from media grabs of the lent retreat, she sat beside Totoy Wangwang (aka Raul Gonzalez) and, despite what she may claim, the Holy Spirit doesn’t sound like Raul Gonzalez—perhaps another spirit, certainly not the Holy one.
I blogged about this before—I’ll believe it when I see it. Certify the bill to repeal the death penalty (of course, there’s nothing to prevent her stooges from inserting another constitutional provision in their proposed constitution on this; but that’s another story altogether.) and stop resorting to cheap—and unoriginal—gimmicks.
What did that wise man say about old dogs and new tricks.
The current dictator has taken a page from the old one, which somehow leads me to admire Imee Marcos’s riposte about the current dictator being a “second rate, trying hard copycat” for its candor, if not its media-impact (One would wish that neither Imee nor the current dictator would try so hard though.)
The Easter message of the dictator mentioned a new policy of commutation of all death sentences. Now, all the legal scholars—acknowledged, unacknowledged, self-proclaimed or otherwise—have spoken at length about the commutations being flawed constitutionally because: 1. they trench on the judicial power to review death sentences, 2. they are broad and sweeping and may impair the rights of the truly innocent on death row (yes, there are those) and 3. commutations cannot be given on a blanket basis because they would involve only those sentenced by final judgment to death and would have to be determined on individual merits on a case to case basis. So I won’t bother too much with these.
What I do mind is the dictator using lives to simply toady up to the Catholic church and get the church’s nod on charter change. If the dictator had suddenly come to an epiphany in the cool mountain air of Baguio, I am certain that the Holy Spirit would have told her—just have the death penalty law repealed. Now, that would underscore a serious commitment to the sanctity of life. Oh, and I’m sure in the next whisper, the Holy Spirit would have told her—forget about charter change and just resign.
Unfortunately, from media grabs of the lent retreat, she sat beside Totoy Wangwang (aka Raul Gonzalez) and, despite what she may claim, the Holy Spirit doesn’t sound like Raul Gonzalez—perhaps another spirit, certainly not the Holy one.
I blogged about this before—I’ll believe it when I see it. Certify the bill to repeal the death penalty (of course, there’s nothing to prevent her stooges from inserting another constitutional provision in their proposed constitution on this; but that’s another story altogether.) and stop resorting to cheap—and unoriginal—gimmicks.
April 10, 2006
Love, repeatedly
Repetition is an expression of love. Doing things over and over again, an endless cycle, a repetition of familiar events and happenings—it is the essence of and an expression of love.
That startled me. It was among the first few lines spoken by Sr. Perry, our retreat facilitator in the first session of our retreat. And it brought me upright and prompted me to write it down.
She was saying, “why do we do things over and over again? We are about to celebrate Holy Week, again; paulit-ulit, para tayong loko-loko. Yet we do it., Why? Because doing things over and over again shows that we love. If we do not love, then we would do something and stop.”
That made me really think.
Why, indeed, do we do the many things we do over and over again—because we believe that these things are worth our time and effort, because we believe that we will make a difference, because we believe that some day, some time, we will get it right. Perhaps, but I liked Sr. Perry’s way of putting it best: it is way of showing that you love.
I was on silent retreat with my brothers and sisters from Lingkod QC at Sacred Heart Novitiate last weekend and after Sr. Perry said that, I just could not do the activity she asked us to do but I spent a lot of time chewing on that nugget of wisdom: repetition as an expression of love.
And then, I realized the enormity of that truth: it is reflected after all in God’s own act of showing love. God did not impose a one-time offer: “I love you; take it or leave it.” Its not as if God’s love were a sale—for a limited period. God’s love is eternal, limitless, boundless and God shows His love repeatedly for His people; for me.
God is not content with one single moment of grace, one single return to Him; He pursues me—repeatedly. Each time I fall from grace, He does not write me off—“tsk, tsk, tsk, I knew it. He can’t hack it”—but instead, picks me up, dusts me off and sends me on my way—again and again and again.
Under the tree-lined beauty of Sacred Heart Novitiate, I marveled at the many ways God showed that He loved me—as he repeatedly would send me grace upon grace, blessing upon blessing, even adversity upon adversity.
Just before lunch of the first day, sitting in a low swing under a tree, with my feet dirtied by the soil below me, I asked myself if I could be capable of that kind of love—to repeatedly do things over and over and over again, selflessly, all in love’s name. And I answered my own question with a “no.” I am not capable of that kind of love for many times, I tend to stop and let my humanity take over; I tend to not “waste time and effort.” And I fell to my knees, like Nehemiah, imploring God’s mercy that He might make more loving, He might make me more determined to be more loving. A I ended my prayer, I heard the Lord say to me—in the silence of Sacred Heart Novitiate and amidst the noise of my heart—“thank you for asking for that grace.”
It was a great start for an immensely fulfilling journey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal aside: I’ve raved about Sacred Heart Novitiate’s beauty for some time already; I think the brothers and sisters have been tuning out whenever I start on this.
But more than ever, last weekend, SHN became a beautiful place for me; perhaps it was because it was silent and God’s voice really could be heard or because it was peaceful and God’s presence could be felt.
Looking at them last weekend, I know that my brothers and sisters from Lingkod QC appreciated the beauty of the place and now share this little secret with me as I saw them choose their favorite bench, their favorite swing, their favorite tree amidst the silence that is not the absence of sound but the absence of noise, amidst the solitude that is not the absence of people but the presence of God.
That startled me. It was among the first few lines spoken by Sr. Perry, our retreat facilitator in the first session of our retreat. And it brought me upright and prompted me to write it down.
She was saying, “why do we do things over and over again? We are about to celebrate Holy Week, again; paulit-ulit, para tayong loko-loko. Yet we do it., Why? Because doing things over and over again shows that we love. If we do not love, then we would do something and stop.”
That made me really think.
Why, indeed, do we do the many things we do over and over again—because we believe that these things are worth our time and effort, because we believe that we will make a difference, because we believe that some day, some time, we will get it right. Perhaps, but I liked Sr. Perry’s way of putting it best: it is way of showing that you love.
I was on silent retreat with my brothers and sisters from Lingkod QC at Sacred Heart Novitiate last weekend and after Sr. Perry said that, I just could not do the activity she asked us to do but I spent a lot of time chewing on that nugget of wisdom: repetition as an expression of love.
And then, I realized the enormity of that truth: it is reflected after all in God’s own act of showing love. God did not impose a one-time offer: “I love you; take it or leave it.” Its not as if God’s love were a sale—for a limited period. God’s love is eternal, limitless, boundless and God shows His love repeatedly for His people; for me.
God is not content with one single moment of grace, one single return to Him; He pursues me—repeatedly. Each time I fall from grace, He does not write me off—“tsk, tsk, tsk, I knew it. He can’t hack it”—but instead, picks me up, dusts me off and sends me on my way—again and again and again.
Under the tree-lined beauty of Sacred Heart Novitiate, I marveled at the many ways God showed that He loved me—as he repeatedly would send me grace upon grace, blessing upon blessing, even adversity upon adversity.
Just before lunch of the first day, sitting in a low swing under a tree, with my feet dirtied by the soil below me, I asked myself if I could be capable of that kind of love—to repeatedly do things over and over and over again, selflessly, all in love’s name. And I answered my own question with a “no.” I am not capable of that kind of love for many times, I tend to stop and let my humanity take over; I tend to not “waste time and effort.” And I fell to my knees, like Nehemiah, imploring God’s mercy that He might make more loving, He might make me more determined to be more loving. A I ended my prayer, I heard the Lord say to me—in the silence of Sacred Heart Novitiate and amidst the noise of my heart—“thank you for asking for that grace.”
It was a great start for an immensely fulfilling journey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal aside: I’ve raved about Sacred Heart Novitiate’s beauty for some time already; I think the brothers and sisters have been tuning out whenever I start on this.
But more than ever, last weekend, SHN became a beautiful place for me; perhaps it was because it was silent and God’s voice really could be heard or because it was peaceful and God’s presence could be felt.
Looking at them last weekend, I know that my brothers and sisters from Lingkod QC appreciated the beauty of the place and now share this little secret with me as I saw them choose their favorite bench, their favorite swing, their favorite tree amidst the silence that is not the absence of sound but the absence of noise, amidst the solitude that is not the absence of people but the presence of God.
April 07, 2006
Noises off
Noise really does wear you down. It causes your body to react in many ways that we sometimes don’t realize.
These past weeks have been noisy for me.
I look forward to two days of retreat—of solitude that is not simply being alone but of being alone with God, of silence that is not absence of sound but the absence of noise.
Like Elijah, I seek the Lord not in the earthquake, not in the raging wind but in the gentle breeze.
I pray for this grace to be able to set these past weeks aside and focus on the God of the gentle breeze, the God whose power is not in noise but in the sound of His voice alone—the voice that calls me from my tomb to break the fetters of sin that bind and the mask of death that blinds and commands me to walk into the light.
These past weeks have been noisy for me.
I look forward to two days of retreat—of solitude that is not simply being alone but of being alone with God, of silence that is not absence of sound but the absence of noise.
Like Elijah, I seek the Lord not in the earthquake, not in the raging wind but in the gentle breeze.
I pray for this grace to be able to set these past weeks aside and focus on the God of the gentle breeze, the God whose power is not in noise but in the sound of His voice alone—the voice that calls me from my tomb to break the fetters of sin that bind and the mask of death that blinds and commands me to walk into the light.
April 04, 2006
Orals
The Resolution reads, in part:
“For PETITIONERS, Atty. Theodore Te will argue for a maximum of twenty five (25) minutes and he will decide on how to share his time with the other counsel/s for petitioners.”
Its not my first oral argument before the Supreme Court En Banc—its my fifth (previously on the Death Penalty [People v. Malabago], Oil Deregulation [Edcel Lagman, Joker Arroyo et al. v. Executive Secretary], Visiting Forces Agreement [Jovito Salonga, Wigberto R. Tanada, et al. v. Executive Secretary, Electricity rates [Freedom from Debt Coalition et al. v. ERC and MERALCO]) but the thrill—and the anxiety—is still there.
Today, the Court set orals for the Calibrated Pre-emptive Response (CPR) issue (Del Prado et al. v. Ermita et al.) and at 1 pm, I will stand before the 15-member Court and once again start with that over-used opening, “May it please this Court. . .”
I’ve been preparing for this for what seems like ages and to speak only for 25 minutes. In an oral argument, however, 25 minutes is like the last two minutes of a basketball game—it can last for hours. In the Meralco orals, I started at 10 in the morning with my presentation and ended my presentation at 4 in the afternoon straight (without lunchbreak, coffeebreak or bathroom break); the orals for that case ended eventually at 9 in the evening.
I pray not only for wisdom, guidance, inspiration but also that I won’t need a bathroom break for hours.
“For PETITIONERS, Atty. Theodore Te will argue for a maximum of twenty five (25) minutes and he will decide on how to share his time with the other counsel/s for petitioners.”
Its not my first oral argument before the Supreme Court En Banc—its my fifth (previously on the Death Penalty [People v. Malabago], Oil Deregulation [Edcel Lagman, Joker Arroyo et al. v. Executive Secretary], Visiting Forces Agreement [Jovito Salonga, Wigberto R. Tanada, et al. v. Executive Secretary, Electricity rates [Freedom from Debt Coalition et al. v. ERC and MERALCO]) but the thrill—and the anxiety—is still there.
Today, the Court set orals for the Calibrated Pre-emptive Response (CPR) issue (Del Prado et al. v. Ermita et al.) and at 1 pm, I will stand before the 15-member Court and once again start with that over-used opening, “May it please this Court. . .”
I’ve been preparing for this for what seems like ages and to speak only for 25 minutes. In an oral argument, however, 25 minutes is like the last two minutes of a basketball game—it can last for hours. In the Meralco orals, I started at 10 in the morning with my presentation and ended my presentation at 4 in the afternoon straight (without lunchbreak, coffeebreak or bathroom break); the orals for that case ended eventually at 9 in the evening.
I pray not only for wisdom, guidance, inspiration but also that I won’t need a bathroom break for hours.
March 31, 2006
Rising higher than the source
Ever since I started teaching law (in 96), this time of year has always been special. It’s the time of the year that the Bar results come out.
For the civilians (read: non-lawyers) out there, this is going be totally difficult to understand because you just have to experience it to know what I am talking about. The Bar, that is, and the seemingly interminable wait for the results.
When the results of my bar exams came out, I and a classmate (now my law partner) were outside the Supreme Court well into the early hours of the April morning; we had commandeered a public pay phone and, with the help of classmates and batchmates inside the Court, were listing as many names of classmates and batchmates we could remember. I remember whooping out loud when I finally heard that my name was on the list (because of my initials, my name would appear on the last few pages). And suddenly, the four years of studying suddenly took on some meaning.
Now that I am teaching law, this time of year takes on special significance—it’s the time of the year that I remember those whom I’ve taught and are now officially members of the legal profession. As I was scanning the list on the net earlier this morning, I started conjuring up faces and even seating positions in the various classes they took under me. Funny (for me) and tragic (for them) moments of inane recitation came back unbidden—sometimes, I even remember what I said as riposte to particular gems of “how not to recite in law school.”
I remember all of these even as I hope that they will become better lawyers than I am for otherwise, all I did then was to mold mediocrity. Unlike the saying, I believe that the stream must rise higher than its source for it is only then that there can be change, for the better.
The Bar is a rite of passage, of sorts. But now the real test starts: you join a profession that is far from perfect and far from noble, you will soon be among the ranks of men and women who, in their all too human moments , will succumb to the temptation to use the law for reasons other than to do justice and to transform society and its inhabitants. Your passage from onlooker and bystander to actor and participant in the stage of Philippine life and society is at hand. The choice is always yours.
May you make a choice to make this far from perfect and far from noble profession one that will truly live up to its calling to do justice to every person and to transform society.
Until then, congratulations Batch 2005! See you in court!
For the civilians (read: non-lawyers) out there, this is going be totally difficult to understand because you just have to experience it to know what I am talking about. The Bar, that is, and the seemingly interminable wait for the results.
When the results of my bar exams came out, I and a classmate (now my law partner) were outside the Supreme Court well into the early hours of the April morning; we had commandeered a public pay phone and, with the help of classmates and batchmates inside the Court, were listing as many names of classmates and batchmates we could remember. I remember whooping out loud when I finally heard that my name was on the list (because of my initials, my name would appear on the last few pages). And suddenly, the four years of studying suddenly took on some meaning.
Now that I am teaching law, this time of year takes on special significance—it’s the time of the year that I remember those whom I’ve taught and are now officially members of the legal profession. As I was scanning the list on the net earlier this morning, I started conjuring up faces and even seating positions in the various classes they took under me. Funny (for me) and tragic (for them) moments of inane recitation came back unbidden—sometimes, I even remember what I said as riposte to particular gems of “how not to recite in law school.”
I remember all of these even as I hope that they will become better lawyers than I am for otherwise, all I did then was to mold mediocrity. Unlike the saying, I believe that the stream must rise higher than its source for it is only then that there can be change, for the better.
The Bar is a rite of passage, of sorts. But now the real test starts: you join a profession that is far from perfect and far from noble, you will soon be among the ranks of men and women who, in their all too human moments , will succumb to the temptation to use the law for reasons other than to do justice and to transform society and its inhabitants. Your passage from onlooker and bystander to actor and participant in the stage of Philippine life and society is at hand. The choice is always yours.
May you make a choice to make this far from perfect and far from noble profession one that will truly live up to its calling to do justice to every person and to transform society.
Until then, congratulations Batch 2005! See you in court!
March 27, 2006
Hmmmm moments
It starts as something that you never thought about but as you start thinking about it, you suddenly realize, “why didn’t I think about that?”
These strange moments of epiphany come to you unbidden and, sometimes, unwelcome but, almost everytime, significant.
Little things; nothing earthshaking; certainly, nothing that would win you any of the Nobel prizes or turn the world, as we know it, on its head. But still, little though they may be in the grander scale of things, they do give you pause.
I had one of those moments of epiphany lately—usually that happens when I’m not doing anything, which is not very often, or strangely enough, when I’m pressed for time with everything I’m doing, which is often (like right now).
It’s one of those “hmmmm” moments which usually place a furrow in your brow or a goofy smile on your mug.
That’s where I am right now—furrowed brow but goofy smile.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
These strange moments of epiphany come to you unbidden and, sometimes, unwelcome but, almost everytime, significant.
Little things; nothing earthshaking; certainly, nothing that would win you any of the Nobel prizes or turn the world, as we know it, on its head. But still, little though they may be in the grander scale of things, they do give you pause.
I had one of those moments of epiphany lately—usually that happens when I’m not doing anything, which is not very often, or strangely enough, when I’m pressed for time with everything I’m doing, which is often (like right now).
It’s one of those “hmmmm” moments which usually place a furrow in your brow or a goofy smile on your mug.
That’s where I am right now—furrowed brow but goofy smile.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
March 21, 2006
dubious Alias
Just went through an 8-DVD boxed set of the 4th season of “Alias”—the type that Edu Manzano goes after. Just when it got to the DVD of the very last episode and just when things start to get exciting, the frame freezes and remains frozen. . . despite anything I do to get it started again. I played it on my “pirated” DVD player—no go.
Will see if I can just score the last episode on the net.
Will see if I can just score the last episode on the net.
Short memories
What we are seeing now is the clearest sign that in any upheaval, to the victor go the spoils.
When Gloria launched her own coup d’etat against Erap in 2001, she had her own left and right “tactical alliance”—this much is already part of history. Dinky Soliman, the first member of her cabinet to be announced, was most probably already thinking up and doing the many gimmicks she is doing now, as part of the so-called “civil society.” When her coup d’etat succeeded, the criminals took over government.
In law, there is a theory of non-liability that is premised on the existence of a crime but no criminal; it is called an exempting circumstance. In a coup d’etat, it appears that success is an exempting circumstance; for certainly, no one will prosecute the successful coup stagers as they would have taken over the government already. There is a crime but no criminal—well, at least none that can be prosecuted, during their tenure.
Gloria should remember her history and she should stop being so hypocritical, if this is not a genetic trait on her part (if it is, then she should try very hard to not be so hypocritical). The left and right tactical alliance she is decrying now is taken from her own playbook.
Those who do not remember the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
When Gloria launched her own coup d’etat against Erap in 2001, she had her own left and right “tactical alliance”—this much is already part of history. Dinky Soliman, the first member of her cabinet to be announced, was most probably already thinking up and doing the many gimmicks she is doing now, as part of the so-called “civil society.” When her coup d’etat succeeded, the criminals took over government.
In law, there is a theory of non-liability that is premised on the existence of a crime but no criminal; it is called an exempting circumstance. In a coup d’etat, it appears that success is an exempting circumstance; for certainly, no one will prosecute the successful coup stagers as they would have taken over the government already. There is a crime but no criminal—well, at least none that can be prosecuted, during their tenure.
Gloria should remember her history and she should stop being so hypocritical, if this is not a genetic trait on her part (if it is, then she should try very hard to not be so hypocritical). The left and right tactical alliance she is decrying now is taken from her own playbook.
Those who do not remember the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
March 20, 2006
The new yellow
Black is the new yellow.
In the old dictatorship of Marcos, the conjugal dictatorship wanted all taxis painted another color other than yellow because yellow became associated with Ninoy Aquino and the street protests.
In this current dictatorship, it appears black is the new yellow.
As with all dictatorships, they start by being OA (over-acting).
In the old dictatorship of Marcos, the conjugal dictatorship wanted all taxis painted another color other than yellow because yellow became associated with Ninoy Aquino and the street protests.
In this current dictatorship, it appears black is the new yellow.
As with all dictatorships, they start by being OA (over-acting).
March 16, 2006
Affirmation
Was pleasantly surprised to get this from my students in an email. It's inspiring to know that there is hope still for Malcolm Hall residents and that perhaps despite or inspite of our efforts and shortcomings as faculty members, they're learning something--most still can't address a rally in straight Filipino though.
------------------------------------------------------------
Call of the Times
Proclamation 1017 (Proc. 1017) was issued on February 24 2006. Since then, our collective shock was overtaken by a series of state actions that run counter to our reasonable expectations as citizens of a democratic republic: violent dispersals of, and ban against public assemblies; denial of due process; the raid on the Tribune offices and police presence in media establishments; the threat of arrest against members of the House. Proc. 1017, and public officers’ acts pursuant to it, are clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. They trespass into a territory where they are most unwelcome – the sphere of civil rights and liberties which no less than the constitution deems hallowed ground. Proc. 1017 vests upon the President a plethora of powers akin to those enjoyed by Marcos during Martial Law. It is an issuance that, in substance and in operation, unabashedly tramples upon our protected freedoms. We believe that we have to contend against Proc. 1017 on the basis of actual consequences that it has already effected in society. The fact that it was couched in a language that is harmless by constitutional standards does not make it less reprehensible. Constitutional defect cannot be rectified by evasive phraseology. Consenting to bring the debate to the level of semantics is paying homage to the skewed legal minds behind the President, who had no qualms exploiting the gray areas of the constitution to serve unprincipled ends. We will not give them that satisfaction.
THE CALL is to speak – loudly, clearly, courageously – for ourselves and in behalf of those who cannot. If we believe that Proc. 1017 is unconstitutional, we should lead our fellow students on saying so without reservations or delay. We owe it to the students of UP, our faculty, and the College of Law to herald our presence in the university and national scene. The majesty of the law – what it is, what it means, what it stands for – is not confined in the classroom. It also thrives in the heart of society and pulsates through the veins of the body politic. There are times when the intellect must be enriched, and times when relevance must be asserted. There is no conflict between the two endeavors, if we believe in learning the law in the Grand Manner.
THE CALL is to learn FROM and WITH the people, to LIVE the days and not simply LIVE THROUGH them, and to be OBJECTS, not mere ACCESSORIES, of history. We must act NOW.
UP Law Class 2009B
SUPPORT THE BLACK-AND-RED RIBBON CAMPAIGN.
Through BLACK we mourn the death of civil liberties;
through RED we invoke the spirit of resistance and militancy that will revive it.
------------------------------------------------------------
Call of the Times
Proclamation 1017 (Proc. 1017) was issued on February 24 2006. Since then, our collective shock was overtaken by a series of state actions that run counter to our reasonable expectations as citizens of a democratic republic: violent dispersals of, and ban against public assemblies; denial of due process; the raid on the Tribune offices and police presence in media establishments; the threat of arrest against members of the House. Proc. 1017, and public officers’ acts pursuant to it, are clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. They trespass into a territory where they are most unwelcome – the sphere of civil rights and liberties which no less than the constitution deems hallowed ground. Proc. 1017 vests upon the President a plethora of powers akin to those enjoyed by Marcos during Martial Law. It is an issuance that, in substance and in operation, unabashedly tramples upon our protected freedoms. We believe that we have to contend against Proc. 1017 on the basis of actual consequences that it has already effected in society. The fact that it was couched in a language that is harmless by constitutional standards does not make it less reprehensible. Constitutional defect cannot be rectified by evasive phraseology. Consenting to bring the debate to the level of semantics is paying homage to the skewed legal minds behind the President, who had no qualms exploiting the gray areas of the constitution to serve unprincipled ends. We will not give them that satisfaction.
THE CALL is to speak – loudly, clearly, courageously – for ourselves and in behalf of those who cannot. If we believe that Proc. 1017 is unconstitutional, we should lead our fellow students on saying so without reservations or delay. We owe it to the students of UP, our faculty, and the College of Law to herald our presence in the university and national scene. The majesty of the law – what it is, what it means, what it stands for – is not confined in the classroom. It also thrives in the heart of society and pulsates through the veins of the body politic. There are times when the intellect must be enriched, and times when relevance must be asserted. There is no conflict between the two endeavors, if we believe in learning the law in the Grand Manner.
THE CALL is to learn FROM and WITH the people, to LIVE the days and not simply LIVE THROUGH them, and to be OBJECTS, not mere ACCESSORIES, of history. We must act NOW.
UP Law Class 2009B
SUPPORT THE BLACK-AND-RED RIBBON CAMPAIGN.
Through BLACK we mourn the death of civil liberties;
through RED we invoke the spirit of resistance and militancy that will revive it.
March 15, 2006
Good man gone
His “resignation” letter gave the end date as “April 1, 2006 or until my replacement is appointed, whichever is earlier.” Thus ended the public life of Solicitor General Alfredo Benipayo, Tribune of the People.
He is a good man in a rotten government; a good lawyer in a lawless reign.
Thrust into the thankless defense of an indefensible government and an illegitimate ruler, this good man became the public face of a government that deserved to be publicly humiliated. Before his peers in a Court he had served long and faithfully, the Tribune of the People simply could not provide the reasons for something that was totally beyond reason. And when that public humiliation did come—within the halls of the Court and in the bar of public opinion—it was all he could do to put a brave smile on his face and pretend that nothing was wrong.
Yet, it is in the character of the man who would not simply allow that brave smile and feeble pretense to be his legacy.
That he “resigned” yesterday, pending the submission of a Memorandum that would rationalize the dictator’s rule, betrayed the turmoil behind that brave smile. That an “equal” in the Secretary of Justice (I use this loosely in relation to the current Secretary of Justice because he is far from being Benipayo’s equal--in erudition, in integrity, in character) would “accept” or even “demand” his resignation is the unkindest cut of all.
Someday, perhaps, when there is no longer a reason for that brave smile and the feeble pretense, Benipayo may tell us the reasons why he would abandon the dictator at the most crucial point in its legal battle for legitimacy. As he belts Sinatra and Bennett, one day, Benipayo may tell us what everyone now “knows”—that he was fired because he could not defend the indefensible and could not legitimize the illegitimate.
In the meantime, the Tribune of the People is gone; long may he live!
He is a good man in a rotten government; a good lawyer in a lawless reign.
Thrust into the thankless defense of an indefensible government and an illegitimate ruler, this good man became the public face of a government that deserved to be publicly humiliated. Before his peers in a Court he had served long and faithfully, the Tribune of the People simply could not provide the reasons for something that was totally beyond reason. And when that public humiliation did come—within the halls of the Court and in the bar of public opinion—it was all he could do to put a brave smile on his face and pretend that nothing was wrong.
Yet, it is in the character of the man who would not simply allow that brave smile and feeble pretense to be his legacy.
That he “resigned” yesterday, pending the submission of a Memorandum that would rationalize the dictator’s rule, betrayed the turmoil behind that brave smile. That an “equal” in the Secretary of Justice (I use this loosely in relation to the current Secretary of Justice because he is far from being Benipayo’s equal--in erudition, in integrity, in character) would “accept” or even “demand” his resignation is the unkindest cut of all.
Someday, perhaps, when there is no longer a reason for that brave smile and the feeble pretense, Benipayo may tell us the reasons why he would abandon the dictator at the most crucial point in its legal battle for legitimacy. As he belts Sinatra and Bennett, one day, Benipayo may tell us what everyone now “knows”—that he was fired because he could not defend the indefensible and could not legitimize the illegitimate.
In the meantime, the Tribune of the People is gone; long may he live!
March 09, 2006
Changing me
Reflecting on what is happening to the country now under this dictatorship, I have had to confront so many things about myself—impetuousness, anger, rage, refusal to love, refusal to forgive. In prayer, I have brought all these to God and yet, they remain.
This has led me to reflect even more why they remain and I am reminded of the exhortation in James 5:13-18:
“Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise. Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit.”
It speaks of praying in season and out of season; it speaks of prayer as the first and only imperative in the life of one created by God in love and for love.
Many times, I have looked at prayer as a “quick fix” or a “magic wand.” Many times, I have asked God, in prayer, to change the many things around me I do not like—the current situation with the dictatorship is one of many things I pray about. Yet, they remain and do not change. Yet, James in his exhortation speaks of prayer having great power in its effects.
Of course, I could always say that James spoke of a righteous man and I am not a righteous man (spoken like a lawyer) and, therefore, my prayer is not great in its effects. While this may be true, yet, I do not think that is all there is to it.
Perhaps, instead of praying that God change what is going on, my prayer should be that God change me.
This has led me to reflect even more why they remain and I am reminded of the exhortation in James 5:13-18:
“Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise. Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit.”
It speaks of praying in season and out of season; it speaks of prayer as the first and only imperative in the life of one created by God in love and for love.
Many times, I have looked at prayer as a “quick fix” or a “magic wand.” Many times, I have asked God, in prayer, to change the many things around me I do not like—the current situation with the dictatorship is one of many things I pray about. Yet, they remain and do not change. Yet, James in his exhortation speaks of prayer having great power in its effects.
Of course, I could always say that James spoke of a righteous man and I am not a righteous man (spoken like a lawyer) and, therefore, my prayer is not great in its effects. While this may be true, yet, I do not think that is all there is to it.
Perhaps, instead of praying that God change what is going on, my prayer should be that God change me.
March 07, 2006
Tumiklop si Saksi
Sorry, Mike E., I will listen to FM or CD during the 6-9 time slot every day. You just lost an avid listener.
Mike E is Mike Enriquez, anchor of DZBB’s Saksi sa BB 6-9 every weekday morning; and I listen to him everyday while driving to work and going to my hearings or meetings.
If you caught the live on-air simulcast anchored by Mike E earlier this morning., you will know why Mike E. has lost a listener on radio (I will continue tuning in to 24 Oras because Mel Tiangco is still credible but I’ll switch channels everytime Mike goes on air). He had a one on one with the dictator; and for a while there, I thought Mike had been hired by Cerge Remonde and had gone over to Channel 4.
To say that Mike was fawning over Gloria is gross understatement. Not even Ronnie Nathanielsz was that bad and at least, for Nathanielsz, it was understandable. But for Mike E., who attempted to project a sense of objectivity and independence? And even through the airwaves, you could feel palpably Mike’s chest (and head) swell when the dictator rewarded him with effusive praise on air.
Someone tell me that interview was a bubble gang prank with Michael V. and ate glow.
Mike E is Mike Enriquez, anchor of DZBB’s Saksi sa BB 6-9 every weekday morning; and I listen to him everyday while driving to work and going to my hearings or meetings.
If you caught the live on-air simulcast anchored by Mike E earlier this morning., you will know why Mike E. has lost a listener on radio (I will continue tuning in to 24 Oras because Mel Tiangco is still credible but I’ll switch channels everytime Mike goes on air). He had a one on one with the dictator; and for a while there, I thought Mike had been hired by Cerge Remonde and had gone over to Channel 4.
To say that Mike was fawning over Gloria is gross understatement. Not even Ronnie Nathanielsz was that bad and at least, for Nathanielsz, it was understandable. But for Mike E., who attempted to project a sense of objectivity and independence? And even through the airwaves, you could feel palpably Mike’s chest (and head) swell when the dictator rewarded him with effusive praise on air.
Someone tell me that interview was a bubble gang prank with Michael V. and ate glow.
March 04, 2006
Lessons in life and law
“But he’s not wearing any clothes.”
That is the innocent but utterly true reaction of the child in the children’s tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes, to the sight of the Emperor walking around naked even as his courtiers, jesters, ministers and everyone else afraid to say “No” to him told him otherwise.
“We’re back to normal with the lifting of 1017.” Yea, and I’m 6 feet tall.
Sometimes it takes childlike innocence to see beyond all the crap and reveal the truth. And when that truth is revealed plainly, it becomes no less compelling because it is spoken by the innocent, the young, the untrained, the inexperienced. In all its stark simplicity, the truth—plain, guileless, unvarnished—stands out.
A lot of my students experienced standing up for their rights these past days. If, in the course of this semester, their only experience with activism was my rants about the dictator and how the study of law becomes irrelevant in a regime where there is no rule of law but the rule of one person, in a span of a week, that experience became personal.
For many, the walk-out last Thursday was memorable because it was probably the first time they walked around the academic oval—chanting slogans from decades past, “walk out, walk out, sumama na kayo!” For many, it was also memorable because it was a time they found common cause with their Dean and their professors as fellow activists for the rule of law. For many, it was memorable because it was probably the first time they felt for a cause strongly enough to take a stand and speak out for it.
Yesterday, lawyers marched to the EDSA Shrine, the current de facto symbol of freedoms now that Plaza Miranda has been removed by Lito Atienza from the list of freedoms’ bastions; with us was a group of students from my alma mater, the U.P. Law—my students, in past semesters as well as some from the current semester.
For many, that was memorable—walking with lawyers of every stripe and color and persuasion. You had civil libertarians, past and present, walking with trapos, past and present. You had opponents in court walking hand in hand. You had alternative lawyers, young and old, walking with traditional lawyers, young and old. You had academicians walking with the foot soldiers in the trenches.
And you had the lawyers of today walking with the lawyers of tomorrow. For me, that was memorable.
In a way because of 1017 and G.O. 5, the dictator managed to put things in perspective for many people, including lawyers and law students alike. That it is possible to push the people too far; that it is possible that greed, lust for power, corruption, malice, selfishness and an overriding ambition to hold on to an illegitimate office and a non-existent mandate can cut across apathy, indifference, cynicism and lack of hope.
I saw in my students that same fire that was mine in those heady days of February 1986 when, as a senior graduating from U.P., I marched with many people I did not know nor cared to know, screamed my throat dry, raised my fist in protest, clasped my hands together in prayer, wept for my country, and later exulted with my people—all for the cause of freedom.
As these twenty something students shouted, “never again, never again to martial law!”, I saw in them (many of whom live sheltered lives) a fire that was stoked, a realization that had just dawned, a passion that was burning and an idea, for them, that had just come: that it was not possible to learn the law without loving the country and the people whom that law professes to serve. It is a lesson that no law professor could teach in the classroom; it is a lesson that no amount of study time in the library could impart; it is a lesson that no school of law could ever drive across. It is a lesson that only life can teach. And for my students who walked out of their classrooms on Thursday and walked with the lawyers on Friday, it is a lesson well-learned.
In 1986, when Marcos fled and Cory Aquino took power, I was then unsure of my calling. An activist who had just finished a pre-med course without any intention of going to medical school, I briefly flirted with the idea of taking up law; yet, I found the beliefs forged in many a DG in the steps of the Palma Hall Annex with my friends from Sapul, SURGE and Buklod-Isip almost irreconcilable with the “rule of law” that I had experienced under Marcos. I refused to become a part of that structure. While praying and reflecting on what my life post-EDSA would be, I came across a letter written by one man to his eldest son and namesake; it was a letter that changed my life and made me enter the halls of Malcolm Hall.
In that letter, the father told his son:
"When you asked me about a month ago, for a list of books that you could read to start studying law, I was loathe to prepare the list because I felt that you would be wasting your time studying law in this “new society.”
I am still not sure that it would be worth your while to do so. A few days ago, while chatting with a soldier, he asked, in all seriousness and sincerity, “Pero sir, kailangan pa ba ang mga abogado ngayon?” And in a way that perhaps he did not intend, he raised a perfectly valid question.
A lawyer lives in and by the law; and there is no law when society is ruled, not by reason, but by will–worse, by the will of one man.
A lawyer strives for justice; and there is no justice when men and women are imprisoned not only without guilt, but without trial.
A lawyer must work in freedom; and there is no freedom when conformity is extracted by fear and criticism silenced by force.
A lawyer builds on facts. He must seek truth; and there is no truth when facts are suppressed, news is manipulated and charges are fabricated.
Worse, when the Constitution is invoked to justify outrages against freedom, truth and justice, when democracy is destroyed under the pretext of saving it, law is not only denied–it is perverted.
And what need do our people have for men and women who would practice perversion?
Yet the truth remains true that never have our people had greater need than today for great lawyers, and for young men and women determined to be great lawyers.
Great lawyers–not brilliant lawyers. A scoundrel may be, and often is, brilliant; and the greater the scoundrel, the more brilliant the lawyer. But only a good man can become a great lawyer: for only a man who understands the weaknesses of men because he has conquered them in himself; who has the courage to pursue his ideals though he knows them to be unattainable; who tempers his conviction with respect for those of others because he realizes he may be mistaken; who deals honorably and fairly with all, because to do otherwise would diminish him as well as them–only such a man would so command respect that he could persuade and need never resort to force. Only such a man could become a great lawyer. Otherwise, “what you are speaks so loudly, I cannot hear what you say.”
For men and women of this kind, our country will always have need–and now more than ever. True, there is little that men of goodwill can do now to end the madness that holds our nation in its grip. But we can, even now, scrutinize our past; try to pinpoint where we went wrong; determine what led to this madness and what nurtured it; and how, when it ends, we can make sure that it need never happen again.
For this madness must end–if not in my lifetime, at least in yours. We Filipinos are proverbially patient, but we are also infinitely tough and ingeniously resourceful. Our entire history as a people has been a quest for freedom and dignity; and we will not be denied our dreams.
So this madness will end; the rule of force will yield to the rule of law. Then the country will need its great lawyers, its great engineers, its great economists and managers, the best of its men and women to clear the shambles and restore the foundations of that noble and truly Filipino society for which our forefathers fought, bled and died."
This letter, written on October 23, 1972 in detention, was written to Jose Ramon Diokno, Popoy, by his father and namesake, Jose W. Diokno, Ka Pepe. It was this letter--alternately an answer to his son’s question, a treatise on the legal profession, a discourse on the national situation prevailing at that time, and a showcase of a lifetime of insights on how to study law–that gave a young and idealistic activist, unsure of his decision to pursue law, the first insight that law and activism, law and advocacy, law and social change, law and a lifetime of meaningful service could co-exist. Twenty years later, that slightly older but still idealistic activist is now a lawyer actively engaged in human rights practice and the teaching of law. In the same manner that his letter challenged me, I would ask you, after reading what Ka Pepe told his son Popoy, to ask yourself if you are the person he describes; if you are a law student, ask yourself if you want to become the lawyer he describes; if you are a lawyer, ask yourself if you are capable of becoming the lawyer and the person he describes.
Now, more than ever, when the Empress’s new clothes are on full display, we need women and men who will tell the Empress that her clothes are an ill-fit. Now more than ever, will we need our good women and men, our good lawyers and law students, our great Filipinos. Now more than ever, our country needs women and men who will stand up for the freedoms that great Filipinos like Ka Pepe, Ka Tanny Tanada, Lean Alejandro, Edgar Jopson, Ditto Sarmiento, and even, more recently, Bobby Gana made their lives’ work and gave up their lives for.
That is the innocent but utterly true reaction of the child in the children’s tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes, to the sight of the Emperor walking around naked even as his courtiers, jesters, ministers and everyone else afraid to say “No” to him told him otherwise.
“We’re back to normal with the lifting of 1017.” Yea, and I’m 6 feet tall.
Sometimes it takes childlike innocence to see beyond all the crap and reveal the truth. And when that truth is revealed plainly, it becomes no less compelling because it is spoken by the innocent, the young, the untrained, the inexperienced. In all its stark simplicity, the truth—plain, guileless, unvarnished—stands out.
A lot of my students experienced standing up for their rights these past days. If, in the course of this semester, their only experience with activism was my rants about the dictator and how the study of law becomes irrelevant in a regime where there is no rule of law but the rule of one person, in a span of a week, that experience became personal.
For many, the walk-out last Thursday was memorable because it was probably the first time they walked around the academic oval—chanting slogans from decades past, “walk out, walk out, sumama na kayo!” For many, it was also memorable because it was a time they found common cause with their Dean and their professors as fellow activists for the rule of law. For many, it was memorable because it was probably the first time they felt for a cause strongly enough to take a stand and speak out for it.
Yesterday, lawyers marched to the EDSA Shrine, the current de facto symbol of freedoms now that Plaza Miranda has been removed by Lito Atienza from the list of freedoms’ bastions; with us was a group of students from my alma mater, the U.P. Law—my students, in past semesters as well as some from the current semester.
For many, that was memorable—walking with lawyers of every stripe and color and persuasion. You had civil libertarians, past and present, walking with trapos, past and present. You had opponents in court walking hand in hand. You had alternative lawyers, young and old, walking with traditional lawyers, young and old. You had academicians walking with the foot soldiers in the trenches.
And you had the lawyers of today walking with the lawyers of tomorrow. For me, that was memorable.
In a way because of 1017 and G.O. 5, the dictator managed to put things in perspective for many people, including lawyers and law students alike. That it is possible to push the people too far; that it is possible that greed, lust for power, corruption, malice, selfishness and an overriding ambition to hold on to an illegitimate office and a non-existent mandate can cut across apathy, indifference, cynicism and lack of hope.
I saw in my students that same fire that was mine in those heady days of February 1986 when, as a senior graduating from U.P., I marched with many people I did not know nor cared to know, screamed my throat dry, raised my fist in protest, clasped my hands together in prayer, wept for my country, and later exulted with my people—all for the cause of freedom.
As these twenty something students shouted, “never again, never again to martial law!”, I saw in them (many of whom live sheltered lives) a fire that was stoked, a realization that had just dawned, a passion that was burning and an idea, for them, that had just come: that it was not possible to learn the law without loving the country and the people whom that law professes to serve. It is a lesson that no law professor could teach in the classroom; it is a lesson that no amount of study time in the library could impart; it is a lesson that no school of law could ever drive across. It is a lesson that only life can teach. And for my students who walked out of their classrooms on Thursday and walked with the lawyers on Friday, it is a lesson well-learned.
In 1986, when Marcos fled and Cory Aquino took power, I was then unsure of my calling. An activist who had just finished a pre-med course without any intention of going to medical school, I briefly flirted with the idea of taking up law; yet, I found the beliefs forged in many a DG in the steps of the Palma Hall Annex with my friends from Sapul, SURGE and Buklod-Isip almost irreconcilable with the “rule of law” that I had experienced under Marcos. I refused to become a part of that structure. While praying and reflecting on what my life post-EDSA would be, I came across a letter written by one man to his eldest son and namesake; it was a letter that changed my life and made me enter the halls of Malcolm Hall.
In that letter, the father told his son:
"When you asked me about a month ago, for a list of books that you could read to start studying law, I was loathe to prepare the list because I felt that you would be wasting your time studying law in this “new society.”
I am still not sure that it would be worth your while to do so. A few days ago, while chatting with a soldier, he asked, in all seriousness and sincerity, “Pero sir, kailangan pa ba ang mga abogado ngayon?” And in a way that perhaps he did not intend, he raised a perfectly valid question.
A lawyer lives in and by the law; and there is no law when society is ruled, not by reason, but by will–worse, by the will of one man.
A lawyer strives for justice; and there is no justice when men and women are imprisoned not only without guilt, but without trial.
A lawyer must work in freedom; and there is no freedom when conformity is extracted by fear and criticism silenced by force.
A lawyer builds on facts. He must seek truth; and there is no truth when facts are suppressed, news is manipulated and charges are fabricated.
Worse, when the Constitution is invoked to justify outrages against freedom, truth and justice, when democracy is destroyed under the pretext of saving it, law is not only denied–it is perverted.
And what need do our people have for men and women who would practice perversion?
Yet the truth remains true that never have our people had greater need than today for great lawyers, and for young men and women determined to be great lawyers.
Great lawyers–not brilliant lawyers. A scoundrel may be, and often is, brilliant; and the greater the scoundrel, the more brilliant the lawyer. But only a good man can become a great lawyer: for only a man who understands the weaknesses of men because he has conquered them in himself; who has the courage to pursue his ideals though he knows them to be unattainable; who tempers his conviction with respect for those of others because he realizes he may be mistaken; who deals honorably and fairly with all, because to do otherwise would diminish him as well as them–only such a man would so command respect that he could persuade and need never resort to force. Only such a man could become a great lawyer. Otherwise, “what you are speaks so loudly, I cannot hear what you say.”
For men and women of this kind, our country will always have need–and now more than ever. True, there is little that men of goodwill can do now to end the madness that holds our nation in its grip. But we can, even now, scrutinize our past; try to pinpoint where we went wrong; determine what led to this madness and what nurtured it; and how, when it ends, we can make sure that it need never happen again.
For this madness must end–if not in my lifetime, at least in yours. We Filipinos are proverbially patient, but we are also infinitely tough and ingeniously resourceful. Our entire history as a people has been a quest for freedom and dignity; and we will not be denied our dreams.
So this madness will end; the rule of force will yield to the rule of law. Then the country will need its great lawyers, its great engineers, its great economists and managers, the best of its men and women to clear the shambles and restore the foundations of that noble and truly Filipino society for which our forefathers fought, bled and died."
This letter, written on October 23, 1972 in detention, was written to Jose Ramon Diokno, Popoy, by his father and namesake, Jose W. Diokno, Ka Pepe. It was this letter--alternately an answer to his son’s question, a treatise on the legal profession, a discourse on the national situation prevailing at that time, and a showcase of a lifetime of insights on how to study law–that gave a young and idealistic activist, unsure of his decision to pursue law, the first insight that law and activism, law and advocacy, law and social change, law and a lifetime of meaningful service could co-exist. Twenty years later, that slightly older but still idealistic activist is now a lawyer actively engaged in human rights practice and the teaching of law. In the same manner that his letter challenged me, I would ask you, after reading what Ka Pepe told his son Popoy, to ask yourself if you are the person he describes; if you are a law student, ask yourself if you want to become the lawyer he describes; if you are a lawyer, ask yourself if you are capable of becoming the lawyer and the person he describes.
Now, more than ever, when the Empress’s new clothes are on full display, we need women and men who will tell the Empress that her clothes are an ill-fit. Now more than ever, will we need our good women and men, our good lawyers and law students, our great Filipinos. Now more than ever, our country needs women and men who will stand up for the freedoms that great Filipinos like Ka Pepe, Ka Tanny Tanada, Lean Alejandro, Edgar Jopson, Ditto Sarmiento, and even, more recently, Bobby Gana made their lives’ work and gave up their lives for.
March 03, 2006
Going beyond mootness
Now that the dictator’s decree is lifted, is it over? Not by a long shot.
Things are not back to normal—media is still chilled, despite their denials; censorship by the police will still continue; warrantless arrests and the threat thereof will still continue; E.O. 464 is still in effect; CPR is still in force.
The Filipino people have said, “Never Again!” It’s time the Supreme Court says it too.
I urge the Supreme Court not to hide behind the seeming mootness of the petitions challenging 1017 and to decide them on the merits. Do not dismiss them simply because they are moot—in that way, you will legitimize a dictator. Instead, use the power of the pen—be once again the “conscience of government”—and say to the dictator and anyone else who would follow after her: “never again.”
Certainly, the Supreme Court cannot—and must not--turn a blind eye on the assault on truth, the attack on press freedom. So, hide not behind mootness, rule instead that Proclamation 1017 and General Order No. 5 are patently unconstitutional. In Salonga v. Cruz Pano and Evelio Javier v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court ruled despite mootness.
So I say to the Supreme Court: decide in favor of democracy, not dictatorship. Say in one voice, with the people, “never again!” Do not hold your peace, speak out now.
Things are not back to normal—media is still chilled, despite their denials; censorship by the police will still continue; warrantless arrests and the threat thereof will still continue; E.O. 464 is still in effect; CPR is still in force.
The Filipino people have said, “Never Again!” It’s time the Supreme Court says it too.
I urge the Supreme Court not to hide behind the seeming mootness of the petitions challenging 1017 and to decide them on the merits. Do not dismiss them simply because they are moot—in that way, you will legitimize a dictator. Instead, use the power of the pen—be once again the “conscience of government”—and say to the dictator and anyone else who would follow after her: “never again.”
Certainly, the Supreme Court cannot—and must not--turn a blind eye on the assault on truth, the attack on press freedom. So, hide not behind mootness, rule instead that Proclamation 1017 and General Order No. 5 are patently unconstitutional. In Salonga v. Cruz Pano and Evelio Javier v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court ruled despite mootness.
So I say to the Supreme Court: decide in favor of democracy, not dictatorship. Say in one voice, with the people, “never again!” Do not hold your peace, speak out now.
Law in the grand manner
To say it was a mixed group is an understatement.
A motley group of about 300 lawyers, law students, paralegals and activists marched this morning to the EDSA shrine from the IBP National Headquarters to protest the dictator’s decree 1017. It was a reunion between civil libertarians from way back and those they had mentored and are now leading the charge; it was also a reunion for the EDSA forces who had somehow parted ways after EDSA and found themselves on different sides of the fence. There were the new generation of lawyers with and of conscience; there were the idealistic law students and paralegals. And oh yes, there were the trapos as well—Cayetano, Binay, Maceda; well, you can’t have everything.
This group took over the EDSA shrine and for close to 45 minutes took turns telling the dictator “NO!” NEVER AGAIN!” After that, we marched back to the IBP National Headquarters for photo ops. En route, we learned that 1017 had been lifted.
I saw my students there, past and present; and despite their being very new to this activism, I see their hearts burn with idealism and passion. And I am suddenly even more hopeful for this country. Now, if they can only learn to address a crowd in straight Filipino. . . (peace, faye.)
A motley group of about 300 lawyers, law students, paralegals and activists marched this morning to the EDSA shrine from the IBP National Headquarters to protest the dictator’s decree 1017. It was a reunion between civil libertarians from way back and those they had mentored and are now leading the charge; it was also a reunion for the EDSA forces who had somehow parted ways after EDSA and found themselves on different sides of the fence. There were the new generation of lawyers with and of conscience; there were the idealistic law students and paralegals. And oh yes, there were the trapos as well—Cayetano, Binay, Maceda; well, you can’t have everything.
This group took over the EDSA shrine and for close to 45 minutes took turns telling the dictator “NO!” NEVER AGAIN!” After that, we marched back to the IBP National Headquarters for photo ops. En route, we learned that 1017 had been lifted.
I saw my students there, past and present; and despite their being very new to this activism, I see their hearts burn with idealism and passion. And I am suddenly even more hopeful for this country. Now, if they can only learn to address a crowd in straight Filipino. . . (peace, faye.)
March 01, 2006
Who and whose I am
“Behold, you fast only to quarrel and to fight
and to hit with wicked fist,
Fasting like yours this day will not make your voice
to be heard on high.
Is such the fast that I choose,
a day for a man to humble himself?
Is it to bow down his head like a rush,
and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him?
Will you call this a fast, and a day acceptable to the Lord?
Is not this the fast that I choose:
To loose the bonds of wickedness,
To undo the thongs of the yoke,
To let the oppressed go free,
And to break every yoke?
Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,
And bring the homeless poor into your house;
When you see the naked, to cover him,
And not to hide yourself from your own flesh?
Then shall your light break forth like the dawn,
And your healing shall spring up speedily;
Your righteousness shall go before you,
The glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard.
Then you shall call, and the Lord will answerl
You shall cry, and he will say, Here I am.”
- Isaiah 58:4-9, RSV
On Ash Wednesday, we remember who we are and whose we are.
For catholics like me, we recall our humble beginnings—from the dirt of creation, God showed His love for mankind by creating us in His own image and breathing on us His own Spirit. Created in love and for love, in pale imitation of the perfect relationship and companionship of love that is shared by the Father, the Son and the Spirit.
This Ash Wednesday, I recall who I am and whose I am. I am Ted, God’s creation and precious in His sight. (Isaiah 43:4, RSV). Created in love and bound by God to love.
On this Ash Wednesday, in the year of P.P. 1017 and G.O. 5, I take to heart the words of the Prophet Isaiah:
Is not this the fast that I choose:
To loose the bonds of wickedness,
To undo the thongs of the yoke,
To let the oppressed go free,
And to break every yoke?
February 28, 2006
Tulang astig
This is a poem written by Marlon; astig!
Go to: http://matangkuwago.blogspot.com/2006/02/proklamasyon-1017.html
PROKLAMASYON 1017
Marlon Hacla
Walang magrereklamo,Walang magsasabing siya'y nagugutom,Walang magdadasal ng tipun-tiponO sisigaw nang sabay-sabayO gagawa ng anumang bagayNa makasisira sa reputasyonNg gobyernong kumalinga
Sa inyo nang tapatAt buong puso.
Ang katanggap-tanggapLamang na mga salita
Ay sabihing ika'y mamamayanNg isang matatag na republikaSa ilalimNg isang matatag na pangulo.
Ang susuway ay dadakpin,Aagawan ng ari-arian,Aalisan ng kalayaan,Tatatakan sa ulo ng marka ng teroristaAt ipauubaya
Sa kamay ng militar.
Go to: http://matangkuwago.blogspot.com/2006/02/proklamasyon-1017.html
PROKLAMASYON 1017
Marlon Hacla
Walang magrereklamo,Walang magsasabing siya'y nagugutom,Walang magdadasal ng tipun-tiponO sisigaw nang sabay-sabayO gagawa ng anumang bagayNa makasisira sa reputasyonNg gobyernong kumalinga
Sa inyo nang tapatAt buong puso.
Ang katanggap-tanggapLamang na mga salita
Ay sabihing ika'y mamamayanNg isang matatag na republikaSa ilalimNg isang matatag na pangulo.
Ang susuway ay dadakpin,Aagawan ng ari-arian,Aalisan ng kalayaan,Tatatakan sa ulo ng marka ng teroristaAt ipauubaya
Sa kamay ng militar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)