Charter change backers deserved it

Elmer S. Casillan
Published on Page A16 of the November 11, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

BELINDA Olivares-Cunanan in a series of columns sounded aghast at the Supreme Court decision junking the petition of Sigaw ng Bayan and the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (Ulap). She said it was “vicious,” “scathing” and “extremely strong and condemnatory language.”But, of course, it was. And rightly so. We who have seen through the “gigantic fraud” are exhilarated and feel vindicated by the words used by the Court. The words and the language reflected the feelings of one whose sensibilities have been sourly offended. In this case, the offense struck the learned and legal sensibilities of the high magistrates (well, at least eight of them). Thus the initiative proponents richly deserved what was coming to them.
Law practitioners (like Raul Lambino) are duty-bound to respect the Constitution. But, as a noted constitutionalist saw it, Sigaw was apparently aware of the constitutional deception it was foisting. Its petition hinged not on facts and law but on the politics of power, pressure and patronage. And meaningless motherhood statements.

It is seldom in this benighted nation that we ordinary citizens could lay claim to a triumph of justice. The eloquently reasoned verdict was certainly a rare and exulting triumph. Not to mention a triumph of logic and common sense. Not to mention a triumph over brazen manipulation, unbridled lust for power and the shameless prostitution of the sovereign will. Now, that’s condemnatory language. But it is also called righteous indignation. And righteous indignation is a right reserved for those who have been unjustly offended; not for those who try to hoodwink somebody and get indignant after they are exposed and condemned for their ruse.
Cunanan said the local officials were terribly hurt for being branded as deceivers. Would Cunanan rather call them the paragons of virtue and honesty? No wholesale offense meant to local officials. But even the most well-meaning among them have come to accept cheating, manipulation and deception as part of the game (a.k.a. political exercises) whether it is called elections, impeachment, or people’s initiative. We have seen the manifest despoliation of these democratic enterprises since 2004, the clearest manifestation of which is the continued stay of “the President” in Malacañang.

Cunanan’s fellow Inquirer columnist, Randy David, has noted that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has “violated all civilized norms of politics.” My previously politically indifferent friends have a more graphic description of the political goings-on under Arroyo; “bastusan” and “garapalan” are words that aptly capture their disgust. They are words that are as strong and condemnatory as the Supreme Court’s verdict.