TaN: In the Philippines, the words and the statements of parties directly involved in a controversy – especially a high-profile controversy – is best taken with a grain of salt (or even ignored). It is best to remember that there will always be biases when parties involved in a controversy are asked for statements – and this goes to the rest of the world. It is like asking a restaurant chef if the food is good; of course it will be good; I have yet to hear a chef say otherwise. It is expected that the parties involved will paint a saintly picture of themselves and portray the other party as sinister and malicious.
I wish media will stop asking such stupid and wasteful questions. Their questions should be incisive and worth reporting, not inane and wasteful of other people’s time. It is insulting to the viewers/listeners (for broadcast media) and the readers (for print media). Even if the vast majority are not aware or tolerate such “garbage”, it does not mean that media must sacrifice quality. In fact, it is one of the duties of media to serve as a means or instrument to uplight the masses to a higher plain of awareness. It would be different and news-worthy if the parties issue statements praising the other party or provide honest shortcomings and critiques of their own party – these would be credible.
TaN: In Mr Babe Romualdez’ column yesterday (‘Public humiliation’, December 4, 2011, The Philippine STAR), the title reminded me of the sentiments of some Filipinos (both sympathizers and common people) who opined that the Arroyo couple was publicly humiliated on that fateful day in November, when much of the public eyes were glued to the television to witness the unfolding drama at the airport. One of the common reactions were that the couple was publicly humiliated.
From my humble and insignificant PoV, they humiliated themselves in, what I would consider, a well thought of and orchestrated zarzuela to get the sentiments of the public in preparation for the impending dark days ahead, when they will be formally charged in court for the many alleged atrocities and anomalies that happened under their watch.
It seems eeriely coincidental (on that fateful day) that the following events just so conveniently transpired and fell into place that most average Filipinos did not realize: (1) that it is known that the TRO (temporary restraining order) – for the hold departure order – will be issued; (2) that it was issued after office hours; (3) that the TRO was not hand-carried (next door); (4) that the bond amount was posted (implying that it was known beforehand how much the amount will be); and, (5) that tickets were bought for every flight out of the country (on that day).
Or were all these cleverly and diabolically planned way ahead in advance, in order to create a scenario that there is political persecution and to curry sympathy and pity from the public. And, further milking the public sentiment for the underdog for all its worth by continuing with the drama into the next days, to stretch the drama as far as it can be stretched.
TaN: The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. In Monday’s incident and Tuesday’s news, the saga of P-Noy’s Quest continues. This latest incident brings things up to the next level – where the (perceived) interest of the People (from P-Noy’s perspective and opinion) and the law (as represented by the judicial system – lawyers and judges – and especially the Supreme Court and in the person of the Chief Justice).
As time passes, people become less and less aware and concerned with the spirit and concentrate on the letter. People lose focus or have shifted or reversed the situation – instead of Man being the main concern, he has become the target of transformation by the system (established by Big Business and with the collaboration – read: connivance – of Big Academia into a human “resource”, an asset (cheap labor) or a liability (wages and benefits). Or, in the context of the recent incident, the preservation of the (judicial) system is taking precedence over the interest of the People (the pursuit of justice and of truth).
It is understandable and reasonable that lawyers and judges are concerned with the (perceived) “attack” on the integrity of the (judicial) institution for it has been argued that “For as the law is the law, right or wrong, good or bad, it is still the law and no one should be above the law”. If the credibility of the “Last Bastion of Justice” is permitted to be assailed and tarnished, where will the ordinary person seek ultimate redress from – aside from the fact that the lawyers and the judges have a vested interest in defending the (judicial) system (it’s their “bread and butter”).
However, the truth remains that the interest of the People is supreme and supersedes all other considerations and concerns – not just the law but even the Constitution. It is known and accepted, without argument, that All Power (of government) Emanates from the People. In other words, the People is the origin of all authority. The Constitution, even if it is the fundemantal law of the land, must give way to the will of the People for it must serve the People’s interest, and a conflict between the Constitution and the People arise, the People must prevail.
Ergo, when the law, even the Constitution stands in the way of the People receiving what is owed them, what is due them – in this case, social justice and redress from what they have endured from oppressive leaders, regardless of violations of rights and privileges – Justice must be served! However, civilized as we are, it must be remembered that in the pursuit of Justice and of Truth, one must not degenerate into lower levels – becoming what we are against. Due respect and courtesy must still be observed and practiced, but never at the expense of what is being pursued or exacted – i.e., Truth and Justice. Rights of the People deserve as much consideration and concern as the rights of the accused.