A Philippine Ethical Value: Subservience

I've developed this guiding principle of discovery as it pertains to an American living in the Philippines. It derives from the fact that, often, things don't make sense. The principle:

• When behavior does not make sense, keep thinking about it, because it MUST make sense.

Garcia

JoeAm's Confusion

My early morning pondering the other day, before our storm, dealt with the case of a woman named Esperlita "Perling" Garcia who was arrested last week for libel for protesting mining activities on Facebook 18 months ago.

Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacerda denied claims that the arrest was for violation of the controversial libel provision of the Cybercrime Law. This law has been put on hold under a TRO by the Philippine Supreme Court until its constitutionality can be certified. The Cybercrime Law doubles the penalty for libel if done on the internet. Lacierda said the arrest was done for a violation of the Revised Penal Code.

Here are the things I didn't understand:

• What is the President's Office doing getting involved in a legal case involving a very minor localized altercation. People are arrested every day for much more important things than a local spat involving a mere P10,000 bail?

• Why is the Revised Penal Code being used? I thought the reason for the inclusion of the libel provision in the Cybercrime Law was because internet libel was not covered in the Revised Penal Code.

• Why in the complainant in the case using the law to punish someone rather than defend his honor? Libel is a crime of honor.

Before discussing how I have managed to answer these questions, let me provide two definitions that will be important to that discussion:

• Ethical value: A standard of behavior deemed right and proper by the community to which it applies.

• Subservience: Knowing your proper place as the lesser being in a hierarchy of power.

The Background on the Case

The background on the case is this. Ms. Garcia is 62 years old and a long-term resident of Gonzaga in Cagayan province. She has been participating in local activities protesting the small-scale mining by Chinese and Taiwanese companies in Cagayan. The mining is authorized by the Cagayan provincial government.

A group of protestors planned a meeting in April 30 of 2011. The meeting was broken up by local officials. Ms. Garcia posted a complaint on Facebook in 2011 criticizing the rough way the meeting was broken up. The Mayor of Gonzaga, Carlito Pentecostes Jr., was criticized in the posting and he took offense. He levied the libel charge and Ms. Garcia was arrested on October 18, 2012. She was released on P10,000 bail.

Excerpt from a report in the Inquirer explaining why the Mayor made the charge:

Pentecoste

• . . . [The Mayor] also stood pat on his decision to pursue libel charges against Garcia to “teach her a lesson for her arrogance. . . . [Garcia] portrayed me as a very bad person on Facebook. She has been making up stories about the supposed opposition of the people of Gonzaga against mining when in truth, there is no such resistance here now."

Ms. Garcia is clearly not a person inclined easily to be subservient. Here is her quote, also from the Inquirer, about her arrest:

• “I find it interesting that no less than the regional director of the NBI (Hector Eduard Geologo), who had to travel for more than five hours, personally carried out my arrest."

A number of environmental groups, internet users and the political party Anakbayan have come to Ms. Garcia's defense.  Anakabayan charged that the arrest was a violation of the Supreme Court's TRO regarding the Cybercrime Law. That's where Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda came into the picture. He represents the President whose political party finds Anakabayan to be a frequent source of irritation. According to the Inquirer, Lacierda said:

Lacierda

• “If you notice, the bail posted was P10,000. The penalty for online libel is prision mayor, which is higher than the penalty imposed under the Revised Penal Code. So this is not a case of e-libel. . . .Let me be clear, let me also inform our good friends from Anakbayan and I hope they don’t ride on this issue but apparently they already rode on it, but they’re claiming that this is the start of e-martial law. Let me tell Anakbayan, please don’t be ignorant of the issues. First, you’re entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to your facts.”

The testy response suggests the President's office is bristling about the dispute.

JoeAm Arrives at Clarity

What are the ways that power is has been displayed in this case:

1. Protest of the mining activities represented power by local citizens trying to prevent environmental damage. A group has more power than an individual.

2. The action of the Gonzaga civic authorities in breaking up a protest meeting repersents a hard form of power: physical confrontation. 

3. Ms. Garcia's Facebook posting, aimed at rallying support, was a peaceful form of expression but offensive to Mayor Pentecostes. Again, she was working on exercising the power of a group.

4. The libel charge levied by Mayor Pentecostes to teach this "arrogant" woman a lesson was clearly a power play. Well, the Mayor is certainly a powerful person.

5. The defense of the arrest by the President's spokesman exerted tremendous political power on this local case. Prickly are we?

6. The rallying of various groups and individuals supporting Ms. Garcia represents the power of the collective, each with his own interest in the case, fighting back.

In the Philippines, conflicts arise when individuals or groups refuse to recognize the hierarchy of power and be obediently subservient to it. If the rule of proper subservience were followed, we would see no conflicts here:

• If a province approves mining, citizens should not protest.

• If individuals disagree, they should not band together to protest.

• You should not speak freely and loosely on your Facebook page. It is a public expression. Sort of . . .

• If you have upset a notable, such as a Mayor, you should apologize. Groveling would be even better.

• Those helping you should never ever make a national political case out of a simple legal matter. Please respect the hard work our President is doing. And his sincerity.

• Go away. Do not get others agitated enough to speak on your behalf, you know, like Human Rights Watch. This might be embarassing for the Philippines.

The expectation of subservience in the Philippines is hard and firm. Palpable. If you rock the boat by refusing to bow, you will pay.

So here's what I have figured out. JoeAm's deductions or guesses.

Question 1. Why is the Pesident involved?

The President's office is involved because the Cybercrime Law is PRESIDENT AQUINO'S law. It is not the Legislature's original law. This conclusion is consistent with the President's frequent complaints about media criticism and consistent with the fact that four legislators got identical copies of Cybercrime language from the Department of Justice (see Raissa Robles Report). It is consistent with the President's enduring refusal to cite Freedom of Expression as a cherished right in the Philippines.

It is bizarre to me. The. President. Just. Can't. Stick. Up. For. Freedom of speech. He can't get his heart and mind to go there when he is so "bruised" by criticisms.

The Cybercrime libel provision appears to be an attempt by the Executive and Legislative branches working together to subvert Freedom of Expression. Freedom of Expression is an affront to powerful people. 

• Subservience is a Philippine ethical value. Power must be respected.

Question 2. Why is the Revised Penal Code being used for an internet case?

The Libel Provision insertion in the Cybercrime Bill by Senator Sotto was not necessary. This case demonstrates that the Revised Penal Code can be used to litigate internet libel charges. The cybercrime libel insertion was an act aimed at strengthening the government's hand in responding to and suppressing criticism.

• Subservience is a Philippine ethical value. Power must be respected.

Question 3. Why did the Mayor lash out at Ms. Garcia?

The filing of the libel charge by Mayor Pentecostes was an act of vengeance, not an act in defense of honor. It was an exercise in power, not in protection.

• Subservience is a Philippine ethical value. Power must be respected.

Well, it all smacks of thuggishness to me, rather than appreciation for the freedoms upon which democracy depends. There is precious little grace emanating from public officials.

Perhaps President Aquino ought to reflect back on his 2012 SONA speech which he closed by recognizing that the people are his boss. It seems to me the people in this instance are justified to rise up and bite him in the ass because:

• SUBSERVIENCE IS A PHILIPPINE ETHICAL VALUE. POWER MUST BE RESPECTED.

Free speech, and peaceful protest, are powers enjoyed by the People.

So sorry, Mr. President. I know criticism irritates you. But it is a part of your job. You are a public figure. Perhaps you ought to work on dealing with criticism more gracefully and let the people speak freely.

Your mother gained office because the people spoke freely.

So did you.

Now you want to shut them up?

Know your place, Mr. President.

And tell Mr. Mayor to get a life.

You know, one with Christian kindness in it, and the diplomatic grace of understanding that he represents those who both agree and disagree with him. If he had simply respected Ms. Garcia's right to object, he would have handled this differently. Like take the dear cranky old woman a plate of spaghetti and a smile instead of a lawsuit. Listen to her instead of telling her to shut up.

You hyper-sensitive people just don't get it, do you? You are trapped by this notion that subservience is a Philippine ethical value and you MUST impose it.

Failure to be subservient is sometimes called speech.

It is legal.

Independence of the Courts and Other Misunderstandings

I refrain from critiquing the impeachment hearing and testimony of Chief Justice Corona as I tend to have compassion for the emotionally challenged.

But I'd like to comment on the complaint of court employees that the impeachment of the Chief Justice infringes on the independence of the judiciary.

I'm not convinced court employees even understand what independence means.

Independence does NOT mean left alone to wield justice in some cocoon that seals the courts off from any engagement with the Legislative and Executive branches. All branches of government must interact in order to understand one another, and to provide the checks and balances that keep government from slipping into autocracy or incompetence.

So when the Supreme Court acts on the constitutionality of a law passed by the Legislature, it is not infringing on the independence of the Legislature. It is doing its job. Or if it cites an executive order as unconstitutional, it is not infringing on the independence of the Executive branch. It is doing its job.

The impeachment process is a legal foundation of Philippine democracy. The Legislature is charged with the "job" of assuring impeachable officials are not on a wayward path.  It is astounding to me that workers in the branch of government that protects and serves this democracy somehow see it as an infringement upon their independence. Indeed, in this case, impeachment is aimed at ASSURING independence of the courts.

And the Ombudsman has a job to do, too, and if anyone were to respect this job, it would be an impartial judge.

How is it, then, that court employees feel such a threat?

Well, for one thing, their "leader" has painted the picture that way. One of grand victim.

One clear conclusion that can be drawn from the Chief Justice's opening statement is that he has failed to disassociate himself emotionally and politically from the other branches of government. His hyper-sensitivity to criticism and process has placed him on the defensive, and on the attack, blaming his troubles on the President and the 188 members of the House who impeached him. And on the Ombudsman who was, after all, simply doing her job with the best information available. The Chief Justice having secured all other avenues of access to his financial records.

So here we have a Chief Justice who does not grant other parts of government the right to abide by their oaths of public service. To do their jobs. He sees threats everywhere. He establishes the hyper-sensitive pipelines to other branches of government that erode the essential judicial mandate of separation and impartiality. The scary thing is that the entire roster of court employees seems have to taken up the flag of sensitivity and is waving it in public demonstrations. THEY, too, are undermining judicial independence because they have no idea what impartiality means. THEY, too, are emotional.

It takes discipline to hold to a steady course in a storm. To think proper thoughts rather than bow to emotions. It takes maturity and perspective. The maturity of the wise. The perspective of the aloof, the observer, the man who stands alone on the mountain top and sees all that is happening below, without climbing down and mucking around in what is happening below.

Senator Enrile has it.

The Chief Justice has come down from the mountain and the price is lost independence of and respect for the judiciary. Lost is impartiality. And lost is the TRUST we must have that the judicial mind is an extraordinary mind, an objective mind, that can reflect on all facts and render clear judgment.

No.

Impeachment is not an infringement on independence of the courts.

It ASSURES independence by making sure the Chief Justice is influenced by no forces other than law, fact and reason.

His personal sensitivity is wrong for the top judicial official in the land. His need to blame and make excuses and whine undermines the impartial integrity of the courts. The bedrock of its independence.