Church and State

They're still talking about that huge rally the Iglesia ni Cristo had in EDSA. The traffic jam was one for the ages. Traffic seems to be the only thing people in Manila ever talk about. From street traffic to foot traffic to congestion on the rail system...

Gotta hand it to the INC, they sure know how to twist the screws but how did it come to this?

To those not in the know, I'll summarize. The INC is a powerful homegrown religious sect known for its habit of bloc voting. Since the INC's members are very obedient to their church leaders, whoever courts the INC's favor is guaranteed a chunk of votes. As a result, the INC is powerful and government officials are reluctant to step on their toes.

Recently, certain problems within the INC's leadership became public. Some of its ministers were allegedly detained illegally. The facts are murky but from whatever little one can gather, it seems some of its leaders didn't agree with the group spending a large amount of money building some megachurch or something somewhere.

The government decided to investigate the alleged illegal detention and here we are. The INC is throwing a fit claiming that it's being unfairly targeted. The INC decided to hold a rally in one of the busiest thoroughfares of Manila, a move no doubt calculated to piss as many people off as possible.

It is quite ironic that one of the rallying cries of the INC was the call for the government to respect the "separation of church and state". It's quite hypocritical for a group that doesn't hesitate to use it's influence on the government, to champion such a principle. Anyway, separation of church and state... The constitution mentions it but doesn't explain exactly what it is. Case law explains that our understanding of separation of church and state comes from American jurisprudence. The details are lengthy, but it boils down to two things: the state cannot establish its own religion and the state cannot prohibit the free exercise thereof.

I fail to see the logic behind INC's complaints. How is the government investigating a crime a violation of church and state? Is it somehow depriving their free exercise of religion? Does that mean kidnapping is a sacred ritual for the INC?

Nah, it's simple. It's all political as usual. I'm disgusted at such a brazen show of force by the INC. Usually, their mass actions and political muscle flexing have a thin veneer of legitimacy to them such as celebrating the anniversary of their founding or some other significant event. What happened over the weekend was a naked power play; there was nothing noble about it. The INC claims it worked out a deal with the government. The government swiftly denied such claim but the whole thing stinks like a rotting rat corpse already. Nothing new here, just the government conspiring against the people as usual.

Glad I don't live in Manila.

Moron Dynasties

I'd like to write more about the issue of political dynasties.

 

"The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law." (Article 2, Section 26)

 

There are two things to look at. One is that political dynasties should be prohibited and the other, that equal access to opportunities for public service, be guaranteed. That guarantee is the aim of the prohibition.

 

In Fr. Bernas' commentary on the constitution, he explained that the subject of the article was a matter of serious debate. Commissioner Sarmiento, he recounts, rationalized the inclusion of the article as a means to widen the inclusion of competent, young and promising poor candidates to occupy positions in government. Though there were officials who ascended  into power despite "accident of birth", such cases were the exception and not the rule. The situation, Sarmiento lamented, was that many officials came from powerful clans with vast fortunes.

 

So the premise here, is that there are all these wonderful, perfectly capable and fine leaders who can't get elected because they can't compete with the lucky few who managed to crawl out of the right vagina. I believe that although this premise is easy to accept, it only just scratches the surface of a deeper problem.

 

The problem isn't just who we elect as leaders but who we are allowed to elect as leaders. I struggle to find ways to explain this but think of it this way; Imagine society divided by two. On the one hand are the regular Juans or the "masses" and on the other hand are the few rich families or elites.

 

Election day is coming and we need to field candidates. The elite of course, have all the money and means at their disposal and send out their sons, daughters and the endorsed cronies who ride on the coattails of the family names. This isn't a crime per se. People have a right to run for office after all. Now, what of the other half? Where are the leaders who rise from humble origins? Where are these mythical "competent, young and promising poor candidates"? Nowhere.

 

You may be thinking that, "Of course, we can't see them because they get steamrolled by the elite candidates who have more money and name recognition." But who's fault is that? Frankly, if all it takes to win an election is money and connections then its a damn embarrassment and its no damn surprise then that only those WITH money and connections can win.

 

What I'm trying to say is that elections should be more than just money and name recognition. It should be about ideas, about issues. But no, the other half composed of the starstruck masses can only respond to showbiz bullcrap and cash handouts. The "competent, young and promising poor candidates" don't exist not because the rich muscled them out but they don't exist because people don't want them. We don't respond to them because they're poor nobodies. We don't support them. We kill them.

 

Political dynasties only appear to be the problem but they aren't. The problem is that the path to power requires only those two things. Political dynasties only figure in because wealth and educational upbringing tend to be inherited. Rich families tend to breed rich and "smart" people. Even connections are inherited. A Mayor's or Governor's son can get a head start in knowing who's who very easily. They have an even bigger advantage this way and yet, people, critics of dynasties, see the advantages the elite enjoys as the problem instead of how these advantages hold such sway over the people.

 

Money and influence are a big advantage but when it's the only thing that's a factor in determining victory, then that's a problem. If only our civil society were as intelligent and mature as required by a democracy, political dynasties wouldn't be such a big deal. Imagine if people cared about ideas more than money. Imagine if competence and dedication were what people looked for in a leader instead of a familiar surname. Imagine if people wanted vision and leadership instead of platitudes are influence peddling. Now stop imagining and go back to reality. The elites, the dynasties, continue to have their way because we allow them to. Only they can produce the leaders we want but not the leaders we need. We need to change our standards. It's sad how winning elections requires so much yet demands so little.

 

The problem is us as usual.

CON-ASS My Ass

There has been a lot of noise lately about changing my country's flawed and unnecessarily rigid constitution. As usual, like all attempts done before, the congress accuses the president of using charter change to hang on to power then the priests and nuns get their groove on then the students skip class to join rallies and whatever. Look, I've seen it all before. Boring. Charter change? When pigs fly.

If there is one silver lining to the ineptitude of the government, stupidity of the people and our inability to unite, is that when I decide to study law, I would still be using the same constitution. It would be way easier on the student since nothing would change. If I become a lawyer, I bet I would still be studying the same constitution and using the same old law books I had in college. As I get old, my grandchildren and their children's children could still use the same books I had and have as much fun learning about the 1987 Constitution as I did. Think of all the money we could save on books!