Unknown to many people, the judgment handed down by an American court in 1995 in a class suit has strangely made rebellion and terrorism in this country compensable rather than punishable.
“Such extreme stretching of democratic liberalism was used to claim human rights to groups that are mostly now considered globally as terrorist groups,” Dr. Galileo Kintanar, a national security expert, recalled in an interview with this writer.
“Subversives and terrorists who were injured, slain or detained in the course of their lawless activities were able to press their claims for enormous amounts of compensation from a private estate rather than from government,” he lamented.
“The implication of this is injustice itself. For one thing, the Republic could be heavily penalized for defending itself or its citizens against rebels or terrorists,” he said.
For his part, the late retired Gen. Guillermo Pecache himself, a respected lawyer and also a national security expert, wrote on the subject of terrorism and human rights as president of the Asian Institute of Strategic Studies and of the Philippine Chapter of the Asia-Pacific League for Freedom and Democracy, thus:
“Those who insist that no threat or danger can ever justify the curtailment of certain human rights, stand on a lofty cloud of idealism, yet would not hold themselves responsible for the deaths of
innocents. Their impassioned arguments only make it possible for terrorists and the lawless to move about freely and exploit human rights and liberties to violate those of others.”
Terrorism is a clear, present and actual danger that compels many to contemplate whether human rights should have primacy over human lives, Pecache argued, adding that “for those who understand the true concept of democracy, moral confusion is not a problem since always the first and highest consideration would be the welfare of the majority, the national interest, public order and public safety much as legitimate demands of minorities and even of deviants are accommodated.”
“It would be worthwhile to go back to that basic document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document that enumerates a long list of rights and people tend to overlook its concluding two Articles, without which the preceding rights would not be viable,” Pecache pointed out.
“Although couched in diplomatic language, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights unequivocally affirms that terrorists have no human rights. It tells us that the enjoyment of human rights is subject to the democratic requirements of public order and the general welfare,” he said.
The 1987 Constitution, crafted after President Corazon C. Aquino forcibly took over the presidency in the 1986 People Power revolt, made martial rule and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus virtual impossibilities and of limited potency, making their declaration by the president, as well as their duration, subject to the pleasures of Congress and/or of the Supreme Court.
Provisions of the Constitution also make the Republic prone to instability, particularly the shortened terms of office of public officials and limitations on successive uninterrupted terms. While the intention for these are noble, these have only induced dynasties, discontinuity of policies and excessive politicking at the expense of public service.
The most glaring weakness of the current charter is less in its text rather than its nonimplementation. Of what use are the provisions on elections, impeachment and recall when presidents can be deposed anytime, and the resulting extraconstitutional succession or take-over ratified or legitimized in unorthodox ways or those inconsistent with laws?
“Thus, it is a great wonder if the Philippines, which is ‘democratic and Republican state,’ as the 1987 Constitution phrases it, can develop the strength it needs to become competitive internationally and stable internally,” said Kintanar, articulating further “that what is needed to mold a stronger Republic from the national security viewpoint is a disciplined citizenry, responsible government and a fervor for national unity and patriotism.”
Not saying that democracy does not figure in the equation, it must be pointed out that in the more than 30 years of democracy that have transpired since the 1986 Edsa uprising, the Republic has yet to enjoy a meaningful moment of strength.
Always, the nation wallows in insecurity and instability, not knowing when fuel and power prices will rise again, or whether the current president will complete his or her term, or when the next coup d’état will come, or where terrorists, kidnappers and criminal syndicates might strike next, or which bank or preneed company will collapse soon or whether the government will make compromises in negotiating peace with rebels.
Democracy has made the nation neither stronger nor more prosperous and in the final analysis, it has not even gainfully increased liberties and rights, except among dissidents and subversives.
Indeed, the practice of democracy is not alien to Filipino temperament and the theory that Asians find greater security or comfort in despotism is hardly applicable to the country. This is so because in the Philippine setting, the practice of democracy has been long on freedom, rights and privileges and short on being responsible, dutiful and disciplined.
To reach the writer, e-mail cecilio.arillo@gmail.com.