Published in Cebu Gold Star Daily
The nature of power is to bend or break the will of the weak. Through the promise of reward or the threat of harm, power is exercised in our daily lives. Today we see two convicted rapists set free because of the power they wield over the weak. One is backed up by the wealthiest nation on earth, and the other by his own personal, less grand but equally effective, wealth, status and influence.
How did it ever come to this?
Since when did we become a people who set criminals free just because they have more money than others who are equally or less guilty?
I remember working with an NGO that serves persons who languish in jail. Our clients were people who have not yet been found guilty but are serving time just because they could not afford to fork out bail money. They are treated as second-class citizens who are herded into our congested, filthy and putrid city jails while they wait for a trial date that may never come. This is my most salient experience of the Philippine justice system. It makes me loathe my choice of profession and want to fly away to a country that values its people.
The nature of power is to bend or break the will of the weak. This is why I do not dare blame Nicole. I do not blame the weak for their weariness and their exhausted patience. I do not blame the fearful woman for running away when faced by the might of the most powerful government in the globe.
Many people spit venomous words at this girl while they watch the news on their plasma TV screens well within their comfort zones. This girl has no comfort zone. As a victim of a violent crime, that’s one of the things taken from you forever. Your reality is altered, and to escape from it by any means possible is a very welcome option.
This is not about her. It’s about us and the system that we allow to sink its roots deep into our consciousness and culture because of our resignation – because of our refusal to speak out and act in unison against the few bad people who have all the power. It is everything wrong about human nature and our unwillingness to rebel against it.
Election after election we grant power to those who don’t deserve it. Year after year we shortchange ourselves by believing that this is our lot in life and this is all that we will ever be.
See the drama of it all. Two freed rapists, two broken women and thousands of confused people behind bars. Welcome to the third world.
Is this the Philippines that was fertilized by the blood of our martyrs? Is this the nation envisioned by the free thinkers of our past?
Many of us feel that we do not belong here. Many of us feel that our one life is too short to waste in a place that does not offer us any real chance for growth. If you have these sentiments, then you are one of the many who have no power – then you are one who truly knows Nicole.
The nature of power is to bend or break the will of the weak. Today, the Philippine dream is to leave the Philippines.
How did it ever come to this?
Showing posts with label power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label power. Show all posts
Friday, March 20, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Power Struggle
Published in Cebu Gold Star Daily
Yesterday, I was able to sit in at a meeting with officials from the Energy Department and the CEO of the Philippine National Oil Corporation. Unlike many of the government meetings I’ve been to, this was very much cordial, casual (over pizza) and highly instructional. It was like taking an unsolicited crash course on energy and the oil industry. Like everyone else, the Energy people talked about the possibilities of renewable sources of power and how it is the only choice we have for the next decade unless we wish to enter into a new age of darkness.
Chilling fact: The world’s oil supply will disappear in twenty years.
So what are we doing about it?
Very many things, but not nearly enough.
Initiatives from all over the globe are being made to further our understanding and application of renewable energy. Europe, Japan and America are working full time to come up with mass produced clean energy automobiles. Scientists from all over the globe are working on different kinds of bio-fuels and alternative fuels. Engineers are designing more fuel-efficient and quieter aircraft and vessels. In the Philippines, full support and generous incentives and tax cuts are bestowed upon those who enter into the renewable energy business, through the Renewable Energy Act of 2008.
We are entering into a new age of responsibility where the world’s light can shine brighter than ever before. In this generation, in our lifetimes, we have no choice but to understand the value of interweaving productivity with preservation.
Renewable energy is clean, efficient, free and unlimited. This will provide lower costs for electricity and, effectively, on all goods and services across the board. The better overall quality of life of each and every person will be assured. This is not only good for the environment; it will certainly be good for business.
So, is this a pie-in-the-sky scenario? Many people continue to think just that. But it doesn’t take a delusional optimist to know that we are moving forward with these technologies and fast. Today, it is perhaps the best place to dump your money because every future activity is pointing towards that particular direction. Like buying Google in its first year of operation, this could be a jackpot that is right before our very eyes and it only takes very common sense to realize this.
It’s time we end the age of promise and enter into an age of fulfillment. Our survival depends completely on it. All this talk of environmental protection is nothing more than self-preservation. If we do not get our act together in the next twenty years, our extinction is a proximate certainty. Mother Nature provides but she will not rescue us from our own stupidity. I have no doubt in my mind that Earth can survive and revive itself without us.
But can we do the same without it?
That is your pie-in-the-sky.
Yesterday, I was able to sit in at a meeting with officials from the Energy Department and the CEO of the Philippine National Oil Corporation. Unlike many of the government meetings I’ve been to, this was very much cordial, casual (over pizza) and highly instructional. It was like taking an unsolicited crash course on energy and the oil industry. Like everyone else, the Energy people talked about the possibilities of renewable sources of power and how it is the only choice we have for the next decade unless we wish to enter into a new age of darkness.
Chilling fact: The world’s oil supply will disappear in twenty years.
So what are we doing about it?
Very many things, but not nearly enough.
Initiatives from all over the globe are being made to further our understanding and application of renewable energy. Europe, Japan and America are working full time to come up with mass produced clean energy automobiles. Scientists from all over the globe are working on different kinds of bio-fuels and alternative fuels. Engineers are designing more fuel-efficient and quieter aircraft and vessels. In the Philippines, full support and generous incentives and tax cuts are bestowed upon those who enter into the renewable energy business, through the Renewable Energy Act of 2008.
We are entering into a new age of responsibility where the world’s light can shine brighter than ever before. In this generation, in our lifetimes, we have no choice but to understand the value of interweaving productivity with preservation.
Renewable energy is clean, efficient, free and unlimited. This will provide lower costs for electricity and, effectively, on all goods and services across the board. The better overall quality of life of each and every person will be assured. This is not only good for the environment; it will certainly be good for business.
So, is this a pie-in-the-sky scenario? Many people continue to think just that. But it doesn’t take a delusional optimist to know that we are moving forward with these technologies and fast. Today, it is perhaps the best place to dump your money because every future activity is pointing towards that particular direction. Like buying Google in its first year of operation, this could be a jackpot that is right before our very eyes and it only takes very common sense to realize this.
It’s time we end the age of promise and enter into an age of fulfillment. Our survival depends completely on it. All this talk of environmental protection is nothing more than self-preservation. If we do not get our act together in the next twenty years, our extinction is a proximate certainty. Mother Nature provides but she will not rescue us from our own stupidity. I have no doubt in my mind that Earth can survive and revive itself without us.
But can we do the same without it?
That is your pie-in-the-sky.
Monday, December 17, 2007
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.
Monday, February 13, 2006
The Rights of the Soul
Originally published in the February 2006 edition of ThePalladium for my column Legal Personality.
Being a fervent advocate of human rights, I am morally bound to speak about how much the marginalized need us and how little they have in both in life and in the application of the law. On a different note, twenty years of Jesuit education has taught me that one cannot truly give what s/he does not have. Jesus Christ, himself, said “If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” And thus, I am equally bound to say that we, ourselves, have a solemn duty to protect our own rights – some of which we do not even recognize.
American psychologist, Abraham Maslow, taught us that the human person has a hierarchy of needs. From bottom to top, he listed them down as Physiological, Safety, Love/Belonging, Esteem, and at the apex, Actualization. One has to satisfy the lower-level needs in order to go up the next rung and satisfy the higher ones. The problem with human rights theory is that it is often restricted to the bottom two levels (food, shelter, clothing, education, safety, etc.) – ensuring people’s survival. But is it fair to end there? A full stomach with an empty heart?
This is where these higher-level rights come in, which I conveniently call “The Rights of the Soul”. Like human rights, these rights are inalienable, inherent and imprescriptible. They cannot be given away or sold, they are not granted by law but are part and parcel of one’s humanity, and they cannot be extinguished through time. One cannot separate them completely from human rights because they are, in fact, human rights and emanate from the same continuum of liberties and freedoms. For instance, the freedom of expression is expanded to form the freedoms of art and music – of beauty… not only to express but to also appreciate and judge the same. The freedoms of religious and political belief also go higher than mere organized beliefs but to personal ones – the right to hope, to dream, to have access to the ideal and the divine. The freedom to feel – to love, to laugh, to cry, to hate, to experience the broad spectrum of human emotions and to go through them again and again. The right to privacy also goes deeper and creates a right to keep one’s life compartmentalized without the fear of being accused of duplicity against the other aspects of his/her life… to be separate his/her career, family and passions from one another.
These are only instances and, no different from human rights, there can be no real possibility of enumerating them all because these are the things that make us human (a concept which might never be fully comprehended). Not only humans of flesh and blood but humans of soul and spirit – things that allow us to reach out into the unknown, the impossible, and the divine and, somehow, make them real.
So, when will we begin to assert these rights? Many people impliedly relinquish these rights by living their lives mechanically… they work, study, eat, sleep and do it all over again the next day and the next until on end. By doing this, no matter how wealthy or intelligent, are they not oppressed as well? One who does not live his/her life all the way to actualization cannot teach another about beauty or meaning or hope. The best that s/he could do is offer material things that inevitably perish in time.
The rights of the soul that we protect turn us into beings of power and by only protecting them, will we be able to empower others.
And here I am, just finished writing a new song while I swallow the last drops of my Starbucks peppermint mocha frapuccino as an unwashed little girl approaches me and begs for a few coins. I hand her a twenty and send her off with a smile and a prayer. I then put on my black jacket and walk home.
So much for higher level rights.
Being a fervent advocate of human rights, I am morally bound to speak about how much the marginalized need us and how little they have in both in life and in the application of the law. On a different note, twenty years of Jesuit education has taught me that one cannot truly give what s/he does not have. Jesus Christ, himself, said “If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” And thus, I am equally bound to say that we, ourselves, have a solemn duty to protect our own rights – some of which we do not even recognize.
American psychologist, Abraham Maslow, taught us that the human person has a hierarchy of needs. From bottom to top, he listed them down as Physiological, Safety, Love/Belonging, Esteem, and at the apex, Actualization. One has to satisfy the lower-level needs in order to go up the next rung and satisfy the higher ones. The problem with human rights theory is that it is often restricted to the bottom two levels (food, shelter, clothing, education, safety, etc.) – ensuring people’s survival. But is it fair to end there? A full stomach with an empty heart?
This is where these higher-level rights come in, which I conveniently call “The Rights of the Soul”. Like human rights, these rights are inalienable, inherent and imprescriptible. They cannot be given away or sold, they are not granted by law but are part and parcel of one’s humanity, and they cannot be extinguished through time. One cannot separate them completely from human rights because they are, in fact, human rights and emanate from the same continuum of liberties and freedoms. For instance, the freedom of expression is expanded to form the freedoms of art and music – of beauty… not only to express but to also appreciate and judge the same. The freedoms of religious and political belief also go higher than mere organized beliefs but to personal ones – the right to hope, to dream, to have access to the ideal and the divine. The freedom to feel – to love, to laugh, to cry, to hate, to experience the broad spectrum of human emotions and to go through them again and again. The right to privacy also goes deeper and creates a right to keep one’s life compartmentalized without the fear of being accused of duplicity against the other aspects of his/her life… to be separate his/her career, family and passions from one another.
These are only instances and, no different from human rights, there can be no real possibility of enumerating them all because these are the things that make us human (a concept which might never be fully comprehended). Not only humans of flesh and blood but humans of soul and spirit – things that allow us to reach out into the unknown, the impossible, and the divine and, somehow, make them real.
So, when will we begin to assert these rights? Many people impliedly relinquish these rights by living their lives mechanically… they work, study, eat, sleep and do it all over again the next day and the next until on end. By doing this, no matter how wealthy or intelligent, are they not oppressed as well? One who does not live his/her life all the way to actualization cannot teach another about beauty or meaning or hope. The best that s/he could do is offer material things that inevitably perish in time.
The rights of the soul that we protect turn us into beings of power and by only protecting them, will we be able to empower others.
And here I am, just finished writing a new song while I swallow the last drops of my Starbucks peppermint mocha frapuccino as an unwashed little girl approaches me and begs for a few coins. I hand her a twenty and send her off with a smile and a prayer. I then put on my black jacket and walk home.
So much for higher level rights.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Wanted: Heroes
Originally published in the December 2005 edition of ThePalladium for my column Legal Personality.
One of my law professors once told me that our job as lawyers is to prevent, avoid, or resolve conflicts. In my short stay in the ALS, I have found this increasingly difficult to accomplish. Many people these days have this tendency to be oversensitive. They hurt very easily. Nobody can make an honest mistake nowadays. Nobody can take a joke anymore. Today you have to be politically correct in whatever you do and say. People no longer want to hear the truth. They want you to feed them with feel-good lies and expertly-manufactured BS in the guise of positive affirmations that only make them stop trying to improve themselves. You can no longer call a spade a spade without being shrugged and given all kinds of strange looks.
We cannot afford to have feelings anymore… not when everything around us is falling to ruin. “I’m sorry, it was an oversight. Please forgive me”. We just don’t want to tell people that they are wrong. Now, I am not saying that we stop having compassion for those who deserve and need it. I’m saying that we should just stop being so oversensitive. It is just not proper in our calling. One cannot be impartial and oversensitive at the same time. Justice has no feelings. We need to be up and alert, sharp, and discriminating with surgical precision. We are ordinary human beings called to do extraordinary tasks.
People should learn to, once more, stand up on their own two feet. We need to be the Filipinos who once stood tall and proud against our oppressors. Dr. Rizal did not sit at home and cry about hurt feelings. When the Spanish friars offended him (although this might be too much of an understatement), he wrote two books and started a revolution. This is the kind of person that we are being shaped to become.
In the world today, truth is not as important as meaning. Knowing this, we should be watchful in allowing the truth to be drowned in a sea of faulty meanings. We have become a nation of blabbering crybabies while the wealthy reach the top because they don’t give a damn what people say about them. We die with our petty concerns and allow the real opportunities to pass us by unnoticed. People always want to see themselves as the victims. This country has no room for any more victims! With the massive privileges and responsibilities dropped on our laps, we have no choice but to become heroes.
How?
Stop feeling sorry for yourself and do your job.
That is all the hero ever has to do.
You cannot embrace a man who is full of sores because the only thing he will feel is pain.
- ANONYMOUS
One of my law professors once told me that our job as lawyers is to prevent, avoid, or resolve conflicts. In my short stay in the ALS, I have found this increasingly difficult to accomplish. Many people these days have this tendency to be oversensitive. They hurt very easily. Nobody can make an honest mistake nowadays. Nobody can take a joke anymore. Today you have to be politically correct in whatever you do and say. People no longer want to hear the truth. They want you to feed them with feel-good lies and expertly-manufactured BS in the guise of positive affirmations that only make them stop trying to improve themselves. You can no longer call a spade a spade without being shrugged and given all kinds of strange looks.
We cannot afford to have feelings anymore… not when everything around us is falling to ruin. “I’m sorry, it was an oversight. Please forgive me”. We just don’t want to tell people that they are wrong. Now, I am not saying that we stop having compassion for those who deserve and need it. I’m saying that we should just stop being so oversensitive. It is just not proper in our calling. One cannot be impartial and oversensitive at the same time. Justice has no feelings. We need to be up and alert, sharp, and discriminating with surgical precision. We are ordinary human beings called to do extraordinary tasks.
People should learn to, once more, stand up on their own two feet. We need to be the Filipinos who once stood tall and proud against our oppressors. Dr. Rizal did not sit at home and cry about hurt feelings. When the Spanish friars offended him (although this might be too much of an understatement), he wrote two books and started a revolution. This is the kind of person that we are being shaped to become.
In the world today, truth is not as important as meaning. Knowing this, we should be watchful in allowing the truth to be drowned in a sea of faulty meanings. We have become a nation of blabbering crybabies while the wealthy reach the top because they don’t give a damn what people say about them. We die with our petty concerns and allow the real opportunities to pass us by unnoticed. People always want to see themselves as the victims. This country has no room for any more victims! With the massive privileges and responsibilities dropped on our laps, we have no choice but to become heroes.
How?
Stop feeling sorry for yourself and do your job.
That is all the hero ever has to do.
Thursday, September 1, 2005
Wing and Talon
Originally published in the September 2005 edition of ThePalladium for my column Legal Personality.
The conversation started with a simple question:
I could have chosen to answer this question with my ever-casual “yes” and dismiss the subject altogether. But this time, it led me to an unexpected stupor of intensive thought.
A Theology professor once told me that we human beings have an infinite capacity for happiness. Comforting words these are but, consequently, it also means that we will never get to where we truly want to be – our destination is ever-ambulant, always two steps ahead of us – always eluding us. When frustration sets in, we shake our heads, bow down and surrender to compromise. Dreams become encrusted with the rough material of reality. Do we allow ourselves to be repeatedly imprisoned this way? Or do we dare break through?
We are the privileged few. Oftentimes, we hear critics say that we are too detached from the real world – from the masses.
Indeed, we are. We are those who desire to truly live rather than to just survive. It is basic that what is popular is infrequently what is right. To allow ourselves to be swept by the masses is to join those who have been divested of free choice – people who act because of the external pressures brought upon them – people who do what they do because they are left with no other option. They are constantly pushed around by painful externalities – they simply cannot act on their own volition lest they get trampled upon and might even die trying. In this situation – when you fight for pure survival, only self-interest governs.
We are too educated and too fortunate to allow ourselves to be fooled into the same trap. All our lives, we have been stormed with blessings that many others could only fantasize about. As a counterpart, we are necessarily yoked with tremendous responsibilities that we ought never to abandon. It is our paramount duty to elevate others to where we are – to champion them and obtain for them the very freedoms that we take for granted every single day.
We must never apologize for being where we are. However, we must never fail to condemn ourselves for not pulling others up during the climb.
Human beings are flawed by nature. But for the few of us who have been given the necessary facilities to better approximate perfection, that is, excellence, we must do so. Anything less is pure unmistakable injustice.
The conversation ended with a simple phrase:
For the 2005 Bar-candidates and future leaders of our nation, I pray that you may never lose your idealism; that you may never allow yourselves to be obscured by the riptide of the masses under the deceptive guise of popular choice, no matter how loud. For the sake of the future of the Filipino people and for humanity, allow yourselves to shine forth for all to see your borrowed glory and take your lead. I implore you to remain steadfast and hold true to your commitment and calling as stewards of justice. Make proud those who have crafted you into incomparably superb tools for bringing legal order to an often chaotic world.
Do not allow yourselves to be just lawyers and pass the bar for its own sake – but be ever-vigilant and strive always to raise the bar to an unprecedented height and embrace your destiny… become the Atenean lawyer.
Come take your fill and reap the fruits of your arduous labor. Remember: infinite capacity. So flex your wings and sharpen your talons. Rest up. You are ready.
No “good lucks” for the prepared. Only three words remain:
The conversation started with a simple question:
Are you happy, Mark?
I could have chosen to answer this question with my ever-casual “yes” and dismiss the subject altogether. But this time, it led me to an unexpected stupor of intensive thought.
A Theology professor once told me that we human beings have an infinite capacity for happiness. Comforting words these are but, consequently, it also means that we will never get to where we truly want to be – our destination is ever-ambulant, always two steps ahead of us – always eluding us. When frustration sets in, we shake our heads, bow down and surrender to compromise. Dreams become encrusted with the rough material of reality. Do we allow ourselves to be repeatedly imprisoned this way? Or do we dare break through?
The Bar Examinations are a few days away. Everything is set.
We are the privileged few. Oftentimes, we hear critics say that we are too detached from the real world – from the masses.
Indeed, we are. We are those who desire to truly live rather than to just survive. It is basic that what is popular is infrequently what is right. To allow ourselves to be swept by the masses is to join those who have been divested of free choice – people who act because of the external pressures brought upon them – people who do what they do because they are left with no other option. They are constantly pushed around by painful externalities – they simply cannot act on their own volition lest they get trampled upon and might even die trying. In this situation – when you fight for pure survival, only self-interest governs.
We are too educated and too fortunate to allow ourselves to be fooled into the same trap. All our lives, we have been stormed with blessings that many others could only fantasize about. As a counterpart, we are necessarily yoked with tremendous responsibilities that we ought never to abandon. It is our paramount duty to elevate others to where we are – to champion them and obtain for them the very freedoms that we take for granted every single day.
We must never apologize for being where we are. However, we must never fail to condemn ourselves for not pulling others up during the climb.
Human beings are flawed by nature. But for the few of us who have been given the necessary facilities to better approximate perfection, that is, excellence, we must do so. Anything less is pure unmistakable injustice.
The conversation ended with a simple phrase:
People like us are never satisfied with the ordinary… and we should never be.
For the 2005 Bar-candidates and future leaders of our nation, I pray that you may never lose your idealism; that you may never allow yourselves to be obscured by the riptide of the masses under the deceptive guise of popular choice, no matter how loud. For the sake of the future of the Filipino people and for humanity, allow yourselves to shine forth for all to see your borrowed glory and take your lead. I implore you to remain steadfast and hold true to your commitment and calling as stewards of justice. Make proud those who have crafted you into incomparably superb tools for bringing legal order to an often chaotic world.
Do not allow yourselves to be just lawyers and pass the bar for its own sake – but be ever-vigilant and strive always to raise the bar to an unprecedented height and embrace your destiny… become the Atenean lawyer.
Come take your fill and reap the fruits of your arduous labor. Remember: infinite capacity. So flex your wings and sharpen your talons. Rest up. You are ready.
No “good lucks” for the prepared. Only three words remain:
ONE BIG FIGHT!
Thursday, March 10, 2005
The Study of Power
Originally published in the March 2005 edition of ThePalladium for my column Legal Personality.
I will never forget these strong, albeit simple, words from a speech that Atty. Medina ardently delivered during the First Alternative Law Groups National Conference: he said, "Lawyers are powerful people". Indeed they are. How else would you characterize an individual who, by his mere words, can send another human being into the darkest and filthiest corners of prison while sapping every ounce of dignity left in him? How else would you describe somebody who can stand before the leaders of this state and convince them that the indigenous tribes of the highlands should be left undisturbed to live in and preserve the lands of their ancestors? These godlike characteristics cannot be taken lightly. The ability to seal the fate of another individual or group of human beings is no small thing that we can just toy around with. The choice on whether to preserve an endangered culture or to relocate entire communities is a both gift and a curse. This is power – and to a great extent, we already have this power even as non-members of the Bar – because we chose to study law.
We, as law students, acquire power every single day. Every statute we master, every judicial decision we comprehend is another weapon and shield that we can use for or against another person. But every weapon can only be as good as its wielder. It can only follow the will of its master. We all have the same weapons at our disposal but it is our duty to decide how they will be employed in battle. We, legal warriors, are free to choose our banners and adversaries – sometimes, they even choose us. We can choose to charge as we hold our heads up high or we can choose to hide in the shadows and strike our unsuspecting victims with treachery. We can use this power to hoard vast amounts of riches for ourselves or we can use it to generate collective wealth by empowering those who surround us. We can use this power to teach those who are defenseless or we can choose to annihilate these ‘easy prey’. We can adhere to the law of the survival of the fittest or we can choose the creed of interdependence and communal survival.
Sooner or later, we will all have to make these choices, not only about which side of the battlefield we will be fighting on but also the methods we choose to employ to win this war. Whom we fight for and whom we fight with will be greatly affected because of this power that we yield. The law is a tool, a weapon – it can do great good or cause great suffering depending on the hand that wields it. We all have to take part in the war, whether we like it or not. The refreshing waters and the blood of our country are in our hands. What happens in the next 20 or 30 years is our burden, our responsibility – it is our problem to solve.
It will, ultimately, be a matter of conscience, discipline and attitude – a continuing choice that we have to make over and over again. We can watch our own backs and eventually be kings of a desolate wasteland or we can find our way together somehow and become citizens of a realized utopia.
We are all warriors. The law is our sword and our shield. We are the generals in this struggle and we choose whom we crush and whom we serve. This onus is a direct consequence of our power. When we chose to be students of the law, we chose power – but we chose to be burdened with difficult decisions as well. Some of us will eventually have to choose sides in the future; some of us already have. But whether we choose to meet our enemies in or outside court, rest assured, we will all be on the same battlefield either as keepers of the peace or instigators of ruin.
So to all of my powerful friends and colleagues... may we have a good fight and may we believe in what we fight for.
I will never forget these strong, albeit simple, words from a speech that Atty. Medina ardently delivered during the First Alternative Law Groups National Conference: he said, "Lawyers are powerful people". Indeed they are. How else would you characterize an individual who, by his mere words, can send another human being into the darkest and filthiest corners of prison while sapping every ounce of dignity left in him? How else would you describe somebody who can stand before the leaders of this state and convince them that the indigenous tribes of the highlands should be left undisturbed to live in and preserve the lands of their ancestors? These godlike characteristics cannot be taken lightly. The ability to seal the fate of another individual or group of human beings is no small thing that we can just toy around with. The choice on whether to preserve an endangered culture or to relocate entire communities is a both gift and a curse. This is power – and to a great extent, we already have this power even as non-members of the Bar – because we chose to study law.
We, as law students, acquire power every single day. Every statute we master, every judicial decision we comprehend is another weapon and shield that we can use for or against another person. But every weapon can only be as good as its wielder. It can only follow the will of its master. We all have the same weapons at our disposal but it is our duty to decide how they will be employed in battle. We, legal warriors, are free to choose our banners and adversaries – sometimes, they even choose us. We can choose to charge as we hold our heads up high or we can choose to hide in the shadows and strike our unsuspecting victims with treachery. We can use this power to hoard vast amounts of riches for ourselves or we can use it to generate collective wealth by empowering those who surround us. We can use this power to teach those who are defenseless or we can choose to annihilate these ‘easy prey’. We can adhere to the law of the survival of the fittest or we can choose the creed of interdependence and communal survival.
Sooner or later, we will all have to make these choices, not only about which side of the battlefield we will be fighting on but also the methods we choose to employ to win this war. Whom we fight for and whom we fight with will be greatly affected because of this power that we yield. The law is a tool, a weapon – it can do great good or cause great suffering depending on the hand that wields it. We all have to take part in the war, whether we like it or not. The refreshing waters and the blood of our country are in our hands. What happens in the next 20 or 30 years is our burden, our responsibility – it is our problem to solve.
It will, ultimately, be a matter of conscience, discipline and attitude – a continuing choice that we have to make over and over again. We can watch our own backs and eventually be kings of a desolate wasteland or we can find our way together somehow and become citizens of a realized utopia.
We are all warriors. The law is our sword and our shield. We are the generals in this struggle and we choose whom we crush and whom we serve. This onus is a direct consequence of our power. When we chose to be students of the law, we chose power – but we chose to be burdened with difficult decisions as well. Some of us will eventually have to choose sides in the future; some of us already have. But whether we choose to meet our enemies in or outside court, rest assured, we will all be on the same battlefield either as keepers of the peace or instigators of ruin.
So to all of my powerful friends and colleagues... may we have a good fight and may we believe in what we fight for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)