Shutting the 'Davao Death Squad' down: A wild goose chase?

All eyes are now on Davao City, as the public inquiry, which is spearheaded by the Commission on Human Rights, over the extrajudicial killings opened last Monday. “The killings have gone on for too long and it’s time to hold those responsible to account,” the INQUIRER report says. “With this message, Commission on Human Rights (CHR) Chair Leila de Lima is set to open on Monday a public inquiry into a wave of unexplained killings of more than 800 people in Davao City since 1998.” (See INQUIRER’s CHR probes 800 kills by Davao death squad)

This isn't the first that a move to hold those behind the extrajudicial killing accountable has been made. As The Mindanao Daily Mirror noted, "Throughout the past decade there have been a number of times in which so-called civil society has risen up to denounce the long series of summary killings that have victimized hundreds of people in Davao City."

This renewed invigoration over the unsolved killings in Davao City spurred me to re-read that part of Alston Report, “Davao: Vigilantism or Death Squad,” which talked about the death squad justice in the city.

Two years ago, Professor Phillip Alston, Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Council on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, visited the country to investigate the rampant extra-judicial killings in the Philippines. After spending ten days in the country in February 2007, he made a report, titled “Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development,” which came to be known as simply the Alston Report.

In the Alston Report, a portion can be found as regards the notorious “death squad” in Davao City, locally known as “DDS” (Davao Death Squad). Following is an excerpt of the Alston Report regarding Davao City’s “death squad justice,” as Alston phrased it.

Opposing the unknown

Recent Pulse Asia survey on Charter Change shows that Most Filipinos (57%) know little about the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Amidst the revival of talks concerning charter change, nearly six in ten Filipinos (57%) report having little knowledge about their constitution.  Practically the same majority figures (52% to 64%) are recorded across all geographic areas and socio-economic classes.  Meanwhile, 25% of Filipinos say that they know enough about the 1987 Constitution, 16% admit to having almost or completely no knowledge at all, and only 3% claim to know a lot.  The percentages of those who have a sufficient level of knowledge range from 12% in the Visayas to 39% in Class ABC while those with the least amount of knowledge vary from 5% in Class ABC to 23% in Class E.  For the most part, the February 2009 figures do not differ significantly from those obtained by Pulse Asia in 2003, 2005, and 2006.

But what is intriguing is that the same survey shows that, A big plurality of Filipinos (42%) is against charter change now while a sizeable majority (64%) does not think it is appropriate to amend the 1987 Constitution at this time.

Indeed it is intriguing. How come Filipinos say they have little knowledge about the Constitution, and yet express opposition against moves to change the Constitution?

One institution, I guess, is largely responsible for this---media. In The Rise of the Rest," Fareed Zakaria asked, "Why do we think we live in scary times?" when research shows that we are probably living "in the most peaceful time of our species' existence." "Part of the problem," Zakaria said, "is that as violence has been ebbing, information has been exploding. The last 20 years have produced an information revolution that brings us news and, most crucially, images from around the world all the time. The immediacy of the images and the intensity of the 24-hour news cycle combine to produce constant hype. Every weather disturbance is the "storm of the decade." Every bomb that explodes is BREAKING NEWS."

That Filipinos professed to have little knowledge on the Constitution and at the same time opposed Charter change (Cha-cha) can be explained in the same way. Admit it or not, Filipinos' prime source of information is the media---newspapers, radios, and TV. So it is not a stretch to say that as Filipinos are being pelted with news reports of the pros and cons of Cha-cha, they develop certain attitudes towards Cha-cha, without necessarily knowing the Constitution itself.

So powerful is the influence of the press that, as John Nery puts it, "... it also forms—public attitudes, the public’s appreciation of important issues, public resolve. In short, public opinion."

On automated election & pervert automatons

Senator Richard Gordon is still in an incensed mode--the same mode he had when he came in Holy Cross of Davao College for a forum on poll automation. Mr. Gordon earlier slammed the election survey conducted by Pulse Asia, saying it tends to "massage" the minds of the voters  "to vote for those whose names always bob up in surveys."

In his commentary in Philippine Daily Inquirer, which makes the case for automated election system, Mr. Gordon exhibited the same level of objection not only to election surveys but to the pervert political system as a whole. While an automated election system will be a first important move to "reinventing government", he said he has "no illusions that automated elections would have an automatic transformational effect on our politics." He added:

When we hear one candidate say that you should have a billion pesos to spend before you run for president, we know that there is something wrong with our politics.

When we see opinion surveys being manipulated this early to condition people’s minds and their preferences, we know that democracy is being perverted.

When little attention is being paid to service records and qualifications for high office, we are reducing our electoral politics to the common denominator of money.

All because of the 2010 elections

Everything that legislators do now has something to do with the 2010 elections. There are two disparate events that seemed to prove this point. First, the consigment of the controversial Right of Reply Bill (Rorb) into the freezer. Second, the planned restoration of the compulsory acquisition of land--the "heart and soul" of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

As I said in the previous post, the reason why legislators were hesitant to act on the Rorb the way the Senate did (the Senate unanimously passed the Bill in its third reading) is that "the bill has so low public support that passing it would earn them a bad rap, which might spoil the chances of winning of those who are mulling for reelection."

With regard to the restoration of the "heart and soul" of CARP, which was removed last year through Joint Resolution No.19, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, who vigorously opposed the removal of the compulsory acquisition of land, said there is a "clear and firm" consensus among legislators that they want to bring back  CARP's "heart and soul."

This isn't so much a change of heart as it is a move to send a message to the people--the voters--that they are willing to take up a populist cause. “Time is of the essence," Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile was quoted as saying. "We can’t dribble this because it’s the country and the welfare of the people which is at stake here.”

Nothing is farther from truth. The truth is, the welfare of the country and of the people is only a pretext here. This is all because of the 2010 elections.

Monuments

[caption id="attachment_479" align="aligncenter" width="475" caption="Does GMA really care?"][/caption]

Randy David says,

Leaders who built their nations or brought them to the pinnacle of greatness and national self-esteem never needed to have their names and faces advertised in public places. Their people built monuments for them in their hearts.

But I say,

Leaders (in the Philippines) who destroyed their nations or brought them to the pinnacle of shamefulness and national disgrace needed to have their names and faces advertised in public faces. For never will the people built monuments for them in their hearts.

Election surveys 'massage' voters' minds—Gordon

Senator Richard Gordon slammed the survey conducted by Pulse Asia, a social research institution. At a forum held just the other day in Holy Cross of Davao College about the poll automation in the offing, Mr. Gordon, who is not one of those preferred presidential candidates per Pulse Asia survey, said that surveys like the one conducted by Pulse Asia tend to "massage the minds" of the voters to vote for those whose names always bob up in surveys.

On March 12, Pulse Asia released its survey results regarding the May 2010 elections. Sampling 1,200 adults, aging 18 years old and above, the nationwide survey conducted between February 2 to 15, yields the following results.

Instead of choosing our leaders on the basis of valid criteria, disregarding irrelevant considerations, popularity becomes the name of the game, Mr. Gordon said.

What happens when popularity becomes the basis of choosing a leader, Mr. Gordon said, is that important issues such as track record and performance and qualifications--which are more important than popularity--do not take a center stage. For if the candidate is popular, it doesn't mean he is a good leader. Far from it, Mr. Gordon said.

Prof. Randy David, a professor of sociology at University of the Philippines and columnist of PDI, finds this popularity as "the main factor" in our political system. As opposed to the system in the USA where issues are debated and discussed, and visions articulated, "in our system...it’s the other way around—mass appeal or celebrity status (or “winnability”) not only comes first, it is the main factor," Prof. David said. "The political program becomes no more than an afterthought, a catalogue of sound bites with no internal coherence."

"When issues take the backseat — qualification, competence, political record, personal history, and political vision also become peripheral," Prof. David adds. "The whole system gets fixated with popularity."

As a parting words, Mr. Gordon urged the audience, mostly college students, to be the master of their vote, to think. Then, he quoted Rene Descartes who said, "I think, therefore I am."

The forum was organized by the Political Science and Mass Communications students.

'We must be politicized'

We've been told to avoid politics by all means—it’s dirty and it’s better left to, well, the dirty. When they tell us how dirty politics is, perhaps they are referring to the dirty tricks of sleazy and traditional politicians, known more commonly as “tradpols,” but most aptly called “trapos,” connoting as it does the garment used for wiping dust and dirt.

But avoiding politics is more than  irrational. It gives “negative bearings on nation-building,” says Asuncion David Maramba in her commentary "Change is us--now." Though we are by nature political, we are not politicized. So Mrs. Maramba exhorts us to be “politicized”:

We must be politicized. Sure we’re political, but we’re not politicized. There’s a great difference. Come election time from neighborhood associations to the presidency we become passionately political. Whispers, phone and text brigades, memos, meetings; hail or denounce this or that candidate. But after the election we retire as usual until something hits us in the pocket or “in the groin.” Like the phoenix we rise and melt into ashes.

On the other hand politicization is an abiding consciousness or disposition of being directly responsible for the state and future of the nation. It keeps an eye on the conduct of its leaders, its structural evils (like its web of corruption), justice-related issues breeding poverty, ignorance, etc; and when vigilance is not enough as in crisis times, politicization is readiness to act with others and chip away at the system until it yields to reform and retribution.

Partisan politics is seasonal and personal; politicization is perennial and for the common good. Partisan politics is flavor-of-the-month and quick-fix; politicization is long-term and long-haul. It never resigns to a plainly evil status quo as a “way of life.” Over-arching all is the sense of nation and love of country. “I, am, a, Filipino.”

Not in the mood

The House of Representatives is not in the mood of passing the Right of Reply Bill. One headline goes: Right of Reply bill goes to freezer.

Leaders of the House of Representatives have thrown the Right of Reply bill (RORB) into the freezer to allow lawmakers to deliberate on more urgent bills.

Speaking to reporters during the weekly Balitaan sa Rembrandt Hotel in Quezon City yesterday, Cebu Rep. Pablo Garcia said he doubted that the bill, which media members believe aims to stifle press freedom, would be calendared for plenary debates again.

What seems to be holding them back? Why are they hesitant to act on it the way the Senate did? I'll hazard one answer: Congressmen are hesitant to pass it because the bill has so low public support that passing it would earn them a bad rap, which might spoil the chances of winning of those who are mulling for reelection.

Sex in the city

On October 5, 2008, Davao City celebrated the “No Prostitution Day” for the fourth time. In deference to the celebration, Mindanao Times, a local daily, ran an editorial entitled “Day of No Prostitution campaign.” “A day of no prostitution,” Mindanao Times noted, “includes…no prostitution occurring in massage parlors, on the streets, in hotels or everywhere else.” But it was ironic that as the city was celebrating the No Prostitution Day, one sector seemed oblivious to it: The sector of the prostitutes.

How have I come to know this?

A torrent of criticisms

The right of reply bill, passed swiftly in the Senate and still to be deliberated in the House of Representatives, unleashed a torrent of criticisms. Here are few:

• 
  

  Insidious censorship by Amando Doronila

  
  


• 
  

  Stark irony by Juan L. Mercado

  
  


• 
  

  Not enough study went into reply bill by Neal Cruz

  
  


• 
  

  Open Door to Media lynching by Amando Doronila

  
  


• 
  

  Dictating to the Media--Editorial of the Inquirer
  



• 
  

  Right to edit--Editorial of the Inquirer

  
  


• 
  

  Malice aforethought by Luis Teodoro

  
  


• 
  

  Right to reply: legislative blackmail by Amando Doronila

  
  


• 
  

  Right of reply bill is totally wrong by Neal Cruz

  
  

With huge stumbling blocks thrown its way, it's likely that the next headline will be: RIGHT OF REPLY BILL SHELVED.

Right of Reply: Affront to democracy

In theory, legislators pass laws in the interest of the public. Unfortunately, that is not the motive behind the right of reply bills, which practicing journalists fiercely opposed because a right-of-reply law would violate their constitutionally protected freedom of the press. But the havoc that a right-of-reply law would wreak would be more fatal to ordinary citizens who rely for information on the press or what is sweepingly called media.

Hail to Efren Peñaflorida, teacher

Teacher from Cavite picked as 'CNN Hero':

Efren Peñaflorida, a 27-year-old Filipino teacher and youth worker, has been named a “CNN Hero.”

The prestigious recognition, CNN said in a statement on Thursday, spotlights ordinary citizens around the world accomplishing “extraordinary deeds.”

Peñaflorida will be featured on CNN’s Larry King Live airing today at 6 p.m. (Manila time). Peñaflorida is the third of approximately 32 heroes to be unveiled this year.

Read his story in CNN: Pushcart classes help break gang chain

Arroyo vs. Arroyo

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is poised to veto the Right of Reply Bill--a bill whose principal sponsor is Senator Aquilino Pimentel. The bill seeks to give those criticized by the media an equal opportunity to hear their side by way of reply. And in the words of Bacolod Rep. Monico Puentevella, who is also pushing for another version of Right of Reply Bill in the Lower House, the objective is "to level the playing field in journalism."

The purported vetoing of the bill by Ms. Arroyo is a reckless political maneuver, precisely aimed at gaining "brownie points from the media." By vetoing the bill, Mrs. Arroyo would appear as though she is a champion of the press. Thus, she'll be spared from the critical eye of the media.

But no, says Senator Joker Arroyo. “Even if the President sides with the media on this, she will still be attacked by the media,” Mr. Arroyo was quoted as saying.