Transactional politics in the Supreme Court

The appointment by Duterte of Teresita Leonardo – De Castro as Chief Justice of the Supreme leaves a bad taste to us non-lawyers. We may not know the legalese of the doings of the Supreme Court but we are no fools. We know the basics of decency and appropriateness. After having testified against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in the Lower House, and still voting for her ouster in the Supreme Court, thus acting as both accuser and judge, now she takes the place of the one she had worked hard to oust! Hindi ba masyado ng garapal? Ganito na ba ang garapalan sa Supreme Court?

No amount of hand washing can clear the palace of having a hand in the ouster of CJ Sereno. No less than Duterte himself has declared CJ Sereno as his enemy and he openly stated that he would have her removed! Solicitor General Jose Calida of the Palace was the one who pushed for the Quo Warranto against CJ Sereno. So who can believe that Duterte had no say in this ouster? The smell is too strong – an implicit political transaction has taken place between the Palace and the De Castro. You scratch my back and I scratch yours. You do me a favor and I return the favor. Is the appointment to be chief justice the reward? And what a reward it is: to get the title of chief justice and to get the fat pension plan of a chief justice upon retirement, with a stint of only 42 days as chief justice! De Castro will be in office only from Augut 28 to October 8 when she retires. Are we to believe that this appointment is done with “judicial professionalism” as Presidential Spokeman Harry Roque indicated? Kung garapal sila, hindi kami bulag. We legal lay people at least know the basic meaning of decency and delicadeza. We are not blinded by the finesse of legal rationalizations.

And what can De Castro do in 42 days? Is this appointment done with the view of improving the justice system in the country? The concern in this appointment and its acceptance is not the service of justice but vanity and greed. How low the supreme court has fallen! It is now just a pawn in the grab for power. With the game of transactional politics engulfing the Supreme Court, can we expect it to stand up and check the power of the President?

Can we, the people do anything? At the moment, I cannot think of anything concrete that we can do. At least we should not just be bystanders as if nothing is happening. We should not even just be on-lookers as our democratic institutions are being torn down. We should not be made to believe that this is alright. We should not be silent. We voice out our rage and together join our forces and consider how we can prevent our democratic system from further sliding down.

Can there be responsible mining?

By Bishop Broderick Pabillo

CAN there be responsible mining? There may be. But if we specify the question and contextualize it: Is there responsible mining in the Philippines now? I would give a definite no!

But first, what is meant by responsible mining? It is mining that is equitable, that is, the stake holders get their proper and just share—the mining company, the government, the local community and the future generation. It is mining that is sustainable, that is, that the benefits should not just be for the rich but also for the poor and for the coming generations. It is mining that is responsible, that is, that the terms of the contract be followed and rights of the stakeholders, especially the poor and the indigenous peoples, be respected and promoted. Responsible mining also means that pollutions be contained and the environment be properly rehabilitated.

Are these conditions possible in the Philippines now? A categorical NO—for the following reasons:

1.      The Department of Energy and Natural Resources (DENR) is severely limited in its monitoring capabilities. It does not have the technology and the manpower to monitor the compliance of the mining companies.

2.      The law that presently governs mining in the country—the Mining Law of 1995—is defective. It is more pro-business than pro-environment. It does not protect the human rights of the local communities. The government and the local community do not get their proper and just share in the operations.

3.      There is so much corruption in the government now. So, not only does it not have the capability to monitor; it has no political will to monitor and discipline the mining companies. Bribes abound and the powerful companies and their political backers even use the military and the police to protect the mining interests against the people. There are so many killings of lumad leaders and environmentalist group members done in the name of fighting the insurgents.  Groups who are against the mining encroachments are tagged as rebels or NPAs.

4.      Mining in the Philippines do not bring sustainable development at all in the places where they are done. There is not a single area where mining has been done that has remained developed after the mining operations have left. Benguet has been mined for more than a hundred years and so much gold has been taken from it, yet the province remains one of the poorest to this day. The fisher folks in Rapu-Rapu in Albay remain poorer, the same with the farmers of Sipalay, Negros Occidental, and so many other places. There is a semblance of development while the operations are being done because the companies set up roads, schools, hospitals, churches for their workers while they are there. But when the operations stop, and they have to stop because mining is extractive and there is no resource that is inexhaustible, the local people are left with nothing, not even the land cannot be tilled anymore, nor the sea or the rivers to be fished.

5.      Former mining sites are not rehabilitated. The government has no capability nor the political will to make the companies accountable for the damage they had done. Marinduque is a classic example. After more than 20 years Boac river is still high polluted and there is the constant threat to the people downstream if the tailings dam breaks.

Now it has been shown that eco-tourism is a sustainable way to make use of our natural resources. Tourists come to the Philippines not because of any cultural monuments or pieces that we have. We have so few of them. They come because of our beautiful beaches, because of our forests and other natural wonders. How many beautiful places have been destroyed by mining! If they had been preserved and developed they could have attracted more tourists!

We will mine our resources but not now. We can mine our natural resources responsibly when we have proper and just laws to govern the industry, when we have responsible people in government who are more eager to protect Philippine environment and the Filipino people than be blinded by money, when we already have the technology to process the raw materials that come from us and bring out finished processed products rather than supply raw materials to foreign companies and then buy back their processed products. Only then can we have responsible mining—but not now!

Not in these conditions

There is much talk now about Charter Change (cha cha) and federalism. It is being pushed by no less than the President himself. The draft made by the Constitutional Committee (Con Com) on federalism that he himself has constituted is now being discussed is the Lower House. A big budget of 90 Million is being eyed for its promotion.

Admittedly, the 1987 Constitution is not perfect. No document is ever perfect, unless it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. The 1987 Constitution can certainly be improved, but not at this time because the prevailing conditions are not appropriate for such a grave task. The constitution is the basic law of the land. It is the basis of subsequent laws that would govern the country. It will be the yardstick by which other legislations will be judged. If the constitution is therefore of “low quality” and not just, then all the other laws will be infected by its limitations. Thus amending the constitution is a very serious matter, much more, overhauling  it! With all its defects, the 1987 Constitution of our country is recognized worldwide for its progressive character, especially in its human rights and social justice provisions. If we are to change it, the result should be a more progressive one, not one of a lesser quality. Can a better constitution come out now, in our present situation? I do not hesitate to shout a loud: NO!

No! because of the “low quality”  and untrustworthiness of our present congress men and women. They do not really look after the interest of the people but only of their own families. The vast majority of them are from political dynasties. They have no convictions, but are political butterflies who cling to whoever is in power. The debate in congress is very mediocre. It is not independent. In fact most people see the Lower House as a rubber stamp of the Executive. We cannot entrust the crafting of a new constitution to such a group! And they are insisting that the present congress will constitute the Constitutional Assembly (Con Ass) for the cha cha. They absolutely cannot be trusted to tinker with the basic law of the land!

No! because our time is not appropriate for honest debate and discussions. A culture of fear is in the air and is being promoted by violent language and accusations on those who oppose the present government. There are even killings of those who are perceived to oppose or do not toe the line. Others are being removed from their office by devious machinations of the law. There is a culture of impunity. Healthy debate is not possible in such a climate.

No! because of the rush in which the process is made to proceed. Proper and transparent debate cannot be forced. It needs time to make people understand what a constitution is, why it is to be changed,  what federalism is, how is federalism to be compared to our present unitary system, and the like. The task is made more challenging by the fact that most Filipinos do not know the present constitution. How wise is it to change something that you do not know? The rush by which cha cha is being pushed is very suspect.

In these conditions, it is not the time to change the charter! The government would be of better service to the people if it addresses the concerns that really impact of them now, like the high inflation, the rise of prices of the basic necessities, the lack of work, the broken peace talks, the unabated drug problem in spite of all the killings, and many, many others! No amount of charter change and federalism will melt these problems away.

Concern for all

Why is the church meddling in politics? We often hear this question, with a tone of reproach in it. We need to clarify some basic understanding in this question. What is and who is the church? What is politics?

The church is the people of God, not only the bishops, priests and religious. In fact, the vast majority of the church is the lay faithful. All the baptized are mandated to continue the mission of Christ, which is to save the world. The world that needs to be saved includes such institutions as politics and economics. Pope Francis wrote: “No one can demand that religion should be relegated to the inner sanctum of personal life, without influence on societal and national life, without concern for the soundness of civil institutions, without a right to offer an opinion on events affecting society.” (Evangelii Gaudium 183)

In the homily that Pope Francis gave in Domus Sanctae Marthae on September 16, 213, as he was reflecting on those in authority, the Holy Father remarked that  some say: ‘A good Catholic doesn’t meddle in politics.’ He said, “That’s not true. That is not a good path. A good Catholic meddles in politics, offering the best of himself, so that those who govern can govern well.” He even gave these very clear words:  “None of us can say, ‘I have nothing to do with this, how they govern.' ... No, no, I am responsible for their governance, and I have to do the best so that they govern well, and I have to do my best by participating in politics according to my ability. Politics, according to the Social Doctrine of the Church, is one of the highest forms of charity, because it serves the common good. I cannot wash my hands, eh? We all have to give something!”

Politics is not bad. In fact it is a vocation, a call from God. Again Pope Francis wrote in the encyclical Evangelii Gaudium: “Politics, though often denigrated, remains a lofty vocation and one of the highest forms of charity, inasmuch as it seeks the common good. We need to be convinced that charity is the principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships  (social, economic and political ones).”(205)

The Church, especially through the lay faithful, should be directly involved in politics to bring it to the service of the common good for the benefit of all. On receiving the bishops of Paraguay in September 2008, Pope Benedict XVI said, “A big part of the vocation of Christian laypeople is their participation in politics in order to bring justice, honesty and defence of true and authentic values, and to contribute to the real human and spiritual good of society.  The role of the laity in the temporal order, and especially in politics, is key for the evangelization of society.”  In the same vein, Pope Benedict unequivocally wrote: “It is the primary task of the lay faithful, formed in the school of the Gospel, to be directly involved in political and social activity. Hence they need suitable formation in the principles of the Church’s social teaching.” (Verbum Domini 100)

This does not mean, however, that the clergy can no longer talk about politics. In fact they are the ones to form the faithful on the Catholic Social Teaching. How can they teach the faithful if they do not talk about it? Besides, the priests, the religious  and bishops do not cease to be citizens, with responsibility to participate in politics themselves, just because they belong to the hierarchy! Besides, Pope Francis also gave this direction: “The Church’s pastors, taking into account the contributions of the different sciences, have the right to offer opinions on all that affects people’s lives, since the task of evangelization implies and demands the integral promotion of each human being.” (Evangelii Gaudium 182)

Let me conclude: Religion has a role in political debate, not in providing concrete political solutions, which lies outside the competence of religion, but to recall to society the objective moral norms as the basis of justice and the just society. This is the service of the Church to the state. So she must always proclaim what is true, what is right and what is just! Her concern is universal – the salvation of all!