Violence Can Solve the World's Problems

 Violence is the exertion of force so as to injure or abuse.

- MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY

Last week, the palace released the order to roll back the conversion of the 144-hectare Sumilao land and return it to the embrace of agriculture. Through the order was in no way conclusive as to the fate the Sumilao farmers' claim, it was, at least, small victory for the them, who took painful discouraging steps for more than ten years in a struggle to achieve a life of dignity and respect. And with this small victory, they were able to return home in time for Christmas for free, carrying with them gifts twice their combined body weights. A Merry Christmas, indeed.


I was fortunate enough to take part in what we considered their "last march to victory" from the DAR office in Quezon City to the Malacañang Palace in Manila. Church leaders from different orders and denominations fortified their ranks as well as students and members of civil society groups. This was the most silent and peaceful march I have ever experienced. Under the heat and smog of Metro Manila, we made it to the seat of power and home of the Filipino people.


I trust that I don't have to retell the story of Sumilao Farmers. This ridiculous tale has been all over the papers since October, betraying the laggard mechanisms of Filipino governance. Back in '97 the farmers staged a 28-day hunger strike, which resulted to an acceptable compromise, only to be taken away by the Supreme Court. This year, they walked for sixty days from Bukidnon to Manila and continued to walk around the Capital Region for another fifteen days, moving from one heartache to another... one rejection after another by a government that had sworn to protect its people. 


Witnessing all these things, I realized that these farmers are some of the most violent people I have ever encountered. Beneath their smiles and cheerful dispositions, they have caused so much pain against themselves... against their own bodies, their own minds and their own emotions. They have willingly subjected themselves to suffering that compounded the burden they were already carrying. Hence, these people of the soil are masochists of the highest grade. 

Tired of injustice, yet?

Some high and mighty members of the business community have a criticized these farmers for acting out of emotion and seducing the public to fall in love with the dramatics and romanticism of the whole exercise. Indeed, Atty. Bag-ao admitted that these were "dramatics". These were emotion-wrenching moves to wake people up. But these were acts done only because people refused to listen to reason from the very beginning. Law is a difficult thing to understand (in spite of the palpable simplicity of this case). People will not take these things seriously until they are able to visualize the actual suffering. And this is what the farmers had provided for us: They painted a 75-day picture for the entire nation to comprehend just how unjust the system has become. Because reason was no longer viable, they had to resort to violence -- self-inflicted violence.


For 75 days, these farmers led the country to a place it's people had long forgotten. There is no such thing as a peaceful protest. Violence will always be present. The only difference is against whom this violence is directed. In this case, it was absorbed by the protesters themselves, never minding that they already had suffered much. For indeed, violence is nothing more than inconvenience multiplied a hundredfold. And for a few people to go through this, to completely abandon their comfort zones just to pursue something worth living for, is nothing short of heroic. 


These people were not beggars... far from it. They were legitimate suitors who were merely calling the government's attention to an oversight that was so clear that it was grave moral abberation that the case lasted for as long as it did. These people never asked for anything. They were claiming what was already theirs: the land and all the dreams they had attached to it.


A couple of days before the farmers packed up for home, we were able to join them at a thanksgiving mass at the Church of the Gesu, where Fr. Danny Huang gave a priceless homily in three languages (English, Tagalog & Bisaya), he spoke of hope as living in the future -- to act as if your goal was "already there" -- na ang Paglaum kay kanang pagtuo nga anaa na kanimo ang imong gipangita. 


Hope in our country is not difficult to find, regardless of the pain you see around you. Consider this: The farmers walked for 75 days, carrying with them only their clothes and beddings, with little or no money or food. They marched under the heat, the rain and they even weathered a storm along the Bicol territories, but never did a day pass by where they were left hungry. No sun ever set leaving the farmers without a roof over their heads. Wherever they went, there were kind souls who understood and empathized. This was a miracle to match the multiplication of bread and fish thousands of years ago. Heroes create heroes. Their power does not come from intelligence or skill, but the will to move others to take action for something greater than themselves... this is sacrifice... this is violence.


May the star of Christmas shine brightest on Sumilao this year.

Survival of the Filipino Dream

Originally published in ThePalladium December 2007 (Vol. 4, Issue 3), released on December 17, 2007. This article was written for my column Legal Personality.

A prophet has no honor in his own country.

- JESUS CHRIST from John 4:44

It was in grade school where I was first taught of this phenomenon called ‘Brain Drain’ in my Civics and Culture class. At first, I was just amused that social terminology could rhyme like that, but as my teacher started to explain what it was and how it was a national evil, I felt the seeds of dissent start to grow inside me, staying my tongue as my mind yelled, “So what?” If people can find their creative destinies away from their country of birth, why stop them? I didn’t know it then, but I was already advocating human self-determination to myself.


Coined by the Royal Society of London in the 1950’s, ‘Brain Drain,’ also known as ‘Human Capital Flight’ is the widespread emigration of highly-skilled, highly-educated or highly talented people to other countries or territories because their own is unwilling or unable to sustain their wants and needs. This is caused by war, famine, poverty, disease, lack of opportunity or any other reason that would impel an intelligent person to seek refuge elsewhere.

Brain drain has been happening everywhere in the world from the very beginning of human existence. When we hear of migration, we remember the Ice Age, the Exodus from Egypt, the European Slave Trade, the India-Pakistan Exchange, and here, close to our hearts, the flight of the Filipino people to every possible habitable place in the globe. These people were compelled to leave by a force that was much greater than themselves. In the Ice Age, it was probably because of the lack of mammoth meat or the search for less ice-age-like climates. During the Exodus, it was the promise of a prophet to lead them to a land of milk and honey that pushed them forward. The Africans came to Europe to fuel its economy because they pretty much had no choice at the end of a musket’s barrel. In India and Pakistan, people have moved around because of religious intolerance and violence between the Hindus and the Muslims of that region. And for the Philippines, well, there are as many reasons for leaving as there are people.


People will always want a better life for themselves and their families. This is human nature and it stems from our instinct to survive. Some people however go through the motions of everyday life with one meal a day and voice out no complaint. These people seem to have resigned themselves to accepting their lot and life and justify it with superstitious ideas of bad luck and misfortune. Their human spirit is broken by a long, long series or combination of social evils that often begin with poor governance. Not only do we have bad living conditions, we don’t have them at all. All we really have are conditions for survival. There is very little room for growth in this country.


On the other hand, we have these highly educated, highly-trained and highly-skilled people who realize all these terrible social ills and the sooner they realize it, the sooner they make that visit to the immigration office. Filipinos who dream big often long to leave the insular and barrio-tic way of thinking and focus on greater things like “making the world a better place” or “becoming the very best in his/her field of work”. They find that their work goes unnoticed, unappreciated and unsupported by their own communities. When this goes on consistently for too long (which is the general rule), the Filipino dreamer will have no choice but to seek for greener pastures. No matter how good, intelligent and hard-working you are, you can only be as good as the opportunities that life gives you. Is it wrong for one to live his/her only life to the very best of his/her capabilities? Is it selfish to leave the country imposed upon you by birth, to seek a country you actually choose because the people there appreciate you and allow you to grow? I think not.


In any case, it will always be our hopeful vision that the millions of Filipinos living and working abroad will look back to the islands and draw out their inherent compassion to support and encourage those who have stopped dreaming. Perhaps when conditions improve, many more people will come back and set up shop here, allowing a strong middle-class to grow. For now, our middle class is overseas. We have to accept the fact that we just cannot give what we don’t have. Wealth is not generated by kindness alone but by the sweat of men and women who are justly compensated. In a sense, our collective destiny as a Filipino people will depend upon our success as individuals, whether here or abroad. 


I just don’t want to see any more Filipinos coming back for the wrong reasons, the worst being the elitist view that “Mas masarap ang buhay sa Pilipinas dahil meron kang mga katulong dun.” 


What about THEIR dreams?


We have a long way to go and many attitudes to change.

The Human Security Act: A Dangerous Euphemism for State Terrorism

by Kazimir K. Ang and Mark Robert A. Dy

Originally published in ThePalladium December 2007 (Vol. 4, Issue 3), released on December 17, 2007.


Both terrorism and anti-terrorism are nothing new. As early as the 1200’s, the common law of England allowed the King and his lords and sheriffs to declare any person or group of persons as outlaws (think Robin Hood and the Merry Men). These outlaws would be stripped of the right to use the law in their favor, thereby exposing themselves to mob violence, swift justice or conviction without trial. They were summarily sentenced with civil death, stripping them of their properties, titles and rights. Outlaws were entitled to none of the basic needs and any person who would give them support in any form (food, shelter, clothing) was considered aiding and abetting outlawry or banditry and would be flogged, tortured or hanged. Much later, this practice would be brought to the New World, influencing much of the Western movies people love so much.


Sans the romanticism of it all, there is nothing exciting about losing your rights by a declaration of a monarch or a president or any of his/her minions. The legislative history of the U.S. has shown many grants of government power that border on the tyrannical. The most prominent among them are the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) of 1970, which was used to quickly hunt down and scatter the Mafia and more recently, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism), which was an immediate legislative response to coordinated 9/11 attacks on American soil. All these laws are characterized by the weakening of civil liberties, harsh punishments and an overhaul of existing procedural rules on custody and evidence. 


Now, here comes their distant Filipino cousin, RA 9372 or the Human Security Act (HSA) of 2007, which has brought about hostile criticisms and verbal missiles in full spates. The protagonists of this piece of legislation, now commonly referred to as the anti-terrorism law, should not be surprised that they’re drawing blood instead of plaudits from concerned citizens and legal practitioners. While this act’s policy states that the thrust of RA 9372 is to protect life, liberty, and property of persons from terrorism and protect humanity as a whole, this valiant policy is but a flimsy stab at covering up many of the insidious manners by which this law may be subject to abuse and to undermine several constitutionally protected human rights. 


Note that the law’s policy statement is a near-exact replica of the due process clause in the Bill of Rights, making it sound as if it were constitution-friendly. What people sometimes forget is that Article III actually defines and limits the powers of the government vis-à-vis civil and human rights, while the new anti-terrorism law is a whole bundle of forced legislative creases on these same rights. In other words, this law, which purports to create a massive shield against terrorism, also fractures the shield we have against government action by creating new exceptions to long-established protections for human dignity.

ter-ror-ism (tr’Y-r-z’Ym) noun


The prime source of controversy is the HSA’s broad and vague definition of what constitutes an act of terrorism. Section 3 of the HSA defines terrorism as the commission of certain crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code “thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.” You would think that the additional elements of having to prove that the act is committed to sow and create fear and that the government is forced to do unlawful acts would make it harder to prosecute individuals for terrorism, until you realize that mere conspiracy to commit terrorism is punishable as well.  


This law is no toothless law or a mere declaration of a war against terrorism. The HSA contains provisions allowing the state to violate fundamental rights found in the Constitution as well as those embodied in international human rights and humanitarian law conventions, leaving one to wonder who’s terrorizing who, really. 


Section 17 bans any organization created for the purpose of espousing terrorism. It doesn’t sound too despotic until you get to the second half of the paragraph which states that an organization nevertheless may be proscribed as a terrorist organization, when the organization, though not organized for such purposes, “uses…acts to terrorize or to sow and create a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give into an unlawful demand.” Clearly we’re faced again with yet another vague definition, which violates our right to assemble and to organize, because with mere allegation and raw intelligence, any organization may be outlawed and any legitimate dissent or protest be proscribed as terroristic. This provision requires hardly a quantum of evidence for any assembly or association to be liable for proscription.

Section 19 provides for the indefinite detention of a suspect so long as there is an “imminent terrorist attack” and a “written approval” from an official of a human rights commission or member of the judiciary. Take cautious note that no probable cause is required to justify the suspect’s detention, only mere claim of “imminent terrorist attack.” This in effect legitimizes warrantless arrests and suspends the suspects’ privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The Constitution requires that in suspending the privilege of the writ, no person can be detained for three days without the filing of charges against him. However, the HSA contains no such requirement – the suspect may be detained beyond three days so long as his connection to the imminent terrorist attack is alleged, without having to file the necessary charges. Also note that the written approval will come from either a judge or an official of a human rights commission under the executive branch, not the constitutionally-created and independent Commission on Human Rights.


Section 26 limits the right to travel of the accused “to within the municipality or city where he resides” and/or places the accused under house arrest, even if entitled to bail, so long as he or she is charged under the HSA but the evidence is not so strong. Not only that, he or she is also prohibited from using telephones, cellphones, e-mail, internet, and other various means of communication with people outside of his residence unless otherwise allowed by the court. 


It used to be a joke that it’s not so bad to be illegally detained, because the HSA requires the payment of P500,000.00 for each day of illegal detention. But a critical run-through of the law reveals that “The amount of damages shall be automatically charged against the appropriations of the police agency or the Anti-Terrorism Council that brought or sanctioned the filing of the charges against the accused,” which actually meant that we’d be paying ourselves, because these appropriations are public funds – in short, taxpayer’s money. The joke is over.


So many things have been said against the HSA by civil society, international organizations and even dissenting members of government. The government might try to push these suspicions away and label them as baseless exaggerated paranoia. But the collective Filipino experience and that of humanity as a whole has taught us to always remain vigilant against any threat on human dignity, never to wait until it’s too late. 


On the other hand, times are changing and we face new threats other than government abuse. This calls for a serious balancing act and a recalibration of our idea of a good society, for the sake of common security. This time, we have to ask ourselves “How much personal liberty are we are willing to give up for the sake of quick justice?” Would you have given up some of your freedoms if you knew it could have prevented the Glorietta 2 incident? 


The HSA was designed to limit rights, make no mistake about that. Legislators decided that some rights have to be limited, in certain cases, in order to quickly dispense with a terrorist threat. They needed to find a way to cripple terrorists by freezing their accounts and properties. They want the courts and the police to be able to gather evidence more quickly by allowing exceptions to the Anti-wiretapping law. They want to prevent the destruction of evidence and the prevention of coordinated movements by limiting the right of communication. Whether we agree with these methods or not is a matter of sound personal judgment. 


As legal practitioners, we often tell ourselves to first wait and see because, ultimately, the matter will have to be dealt with by the Supreme Court, if and when an actual controversy arises. But the vigilance required of us has very little to do with mere intellectual discussions and abstract exaltations. This is as real as it can get. We are dealing with real lives and real victims. And when the time comes, we, as stewards  of  justice,  must  never stand  indolently by.

Art Inspires Art: Even Angels Cry by Ida

Here is an impressive piece of digital art created by Ida from the Philippines, inspired by Sundown Caffeine's song Even Angels Cry.


Original artwork found at:
http://ida-d-great.deviantart.com/art/Even-Angels-Cry-68253354


Thanks for sharing this with us, Ida! :)


Peace out!

Farmer Joey

This week was full of prouder moments... of being a human rights advocate and a part of the legal profession... of having friends who sacrifice and inspire... of being part of something beyond words, beyond life.


A few hours ago, I had an instructive encouter with a Sumilao farmer named Joey. I offered him a light and we started talking:


Joey: Diba ikaw 'tong kauban namo adtong isa ka adlaw sa San Carlos? Joey [offering me a handshake] (Aren't you the one who was with us the other day at San Carlos? Joey)


Mark: O. Mark [shaking his hand] (Yup. Mark.)


Mark: O, unsay nahitabo ganina? (So, what happened today?)


Joey: Wala mi pasudla sa Malacanang. (They didn't let us in Malacanang)


Mark: Mao ba? Wala man lay ning sugat sa inyo? (Really? Wasn't there anyone there to greet you?)


Joey: Wala lagi. (Nobody did.)


Mark: Yawa. Unya, unsay inyong gi buhat? (The devil. What did you do?)


Joey: Wala lang. Gahulat lang tawn mi didto. (Nothing. We just waited.)


Mark: Grabe sad ning inyong kalisud no? Wala pa gyuy ning buhat ani sukad. (This is some sacrifice you're making. Nobody's ever done this before.)


Joey: Mao lagi. (Yup.)


Mark: Naa nakay asawa, Joey? (Are you married, Joey?)


Joey: O. Tulo na gani ako anak. Isa ka four-year old, isa ka two ug isa ka one-year old. (Yes. I have three children. A four-year old, a two-year old and a one-year old).


Mark: Wala ka gimingaw? (Do you miss them?)


Joey: Mingaw lagi. Sa buntag ok lang kay daghan man tao. Bibo pa. Pero sa gabii, mingawon gyud ta. (Yup. During the day, it's alright because we're surrounded with so many people and we have a nice time. But in the evening's, I really miss my family.)


Mark: First time ba ninyo sa Manila? (Is it your first time in Manila?)


Joey: Kami kadalasan, first time pa. (For most of us, it is.)


Mark: Kuyaw sad mo no? First time ninyo, daghan na kaayo mog nakit-an? (Wow. It's your first time and you've already visited all these places.)


Joey: Mao lagi. Pag agi nako sa EDSA mura gyud ko'g ga-damgo. Kining mga lugara, gaka-kit-an ra gyud ni namo sa TV. Pero karun, naa na mi diri. Kuyaw gihapon na experience. (Yup. As I was walking along EDSA, I felt like I was dreaming. These are places that we only see on television. But now, here we are. This is an amazing experience.)


Mark: Padayun lang gyud, bai. Bisang lisud na kaayo, siguro nakit-an man ninyo na bisan asa mo mu-adto, daghan gyud ga suporta sa inyo. Gikan sa Surigao abot sa Manila, naa man gyuy ning dawat sa inyo diba? (Just hold on, friend. It's been hard, I'm sure you've noticed that no matter where you go, you will always find many people who support you. From Surigao to Manila, there have always been people who have lent you aid, right?)


Joey: Mao lagi. Naa gyud mi pirmi matulugan. Wala gyud mi nagutom. (Right. We always had a place to sleep. We were never left hungry.)


Mark: Daghan pa gihapon buotan na Pilipino, diba? Mahuman nalang lagi unta ni para mu-uli na mo. Pasko na raba hapit. (There are still many good Filipinos, right? I just hope that all this will be over soon so you guys can go home. Christmas is coming very soon.)


Joey: Mao lagi. Sa kaluoy sa Dyos. Mahuman na unta. (Right. By God's grace, I hope it will be.)




We shared a few jokes just to lighten the mood and Joey excused himself. After listening to one of Marlon's enlightening lectures, Det and I had to leave because she had a 6am call time at work. And so we took a cab and I dropped Det off at her place... and then... for no clear reason... I walked... I walked from the San Carlos Seminary to my home. 


It took me forty minutes this time because of my unusually heavy backpack.


When I got home, I could not feel more grateful.


How petty our problems seem after talking to a tired landless farmer.


We continue to fight. Tomorrow's another day.