Enacting the Whine

The other day I wrote about ambition and unity as elements of a vibrant Philippines. Today I'll address one of the barriers to unity. It is called authoritarianism.

Unity requires a joining of hearts and effort. Authoritarianism hardens hearts and diminishes effort.

From the outside looking in, one of the interesting facets of Philippine culture is the authority Filipinos grant within three hierarchies of respect that exist in civil society. Authority is allocated: (1) along the family "chain of respect" from the oldest down to the youngest, and (2) along the community chain of respect for those with any power whatsoever (mayor, barangay captain, policeman, civil registrar or LTO or other agent, banker, priest, doctor or, if you have a flat tire, the vulcanizing guy). Everything else (3) is "in play", competitive, one person or unit (family, clan, city) vying with another for supremacy based on this engagement or that. The winner has the power.

So in a very generalized way, the structure of Philippine respect follows authoritarian lines from top down:

1. Family authority, age-based respect, which is extended to include cousins, classmates and companions.
2.  Community authority, granted to people in important jobs who have the ability to either help or hurt others. This often follows class lines, from the ruling national elite down.
3. Peer competition for advantage, where such competition involves tearing opponents down, or building allies up. The competition can be seen in negotiating sales, posturing for popularity, or angling to get a job or contract.

In American society, the same general lines of authority exist, but they are weaker because individuals are expected to act for themselves rather than simply "do what I am told". In America, authority is built from the bottom up, or earned. Rather than demanded.

1. So in the American family, age warrants polite respect, but not mandated obedience. This weaker bind to the family helps promote the independence of self that Americans develop that impels them to leave the family at around age eighteen.
2. American laws promote a kind of "consumer power" that government agencies and professionals must respect. In the Philippines, consumers have no recourse, no where to go with a complaint. In America there are consumer groups and lawyers all over the place willing to advocate or sue on behalf of citizens who are cheated or abused. People are perceived as having worth or "equality" with those in power. As such, respect is conveyed upward when the individual wants to grant it (to a boss), not when it is demanded.
3. Peer competition in American has less room (less acceptance) for cheating or connivance and tends to be less acrimonious. It is like the difference between "fixed price" shopping and negotiations. One's standing in the Philippines is negotiated with each inter-personal interaction. In America, everyone walks around fixed-price. Equal, as a citizen.

Well, as in all gross generalities, there are a lot of exceptions on both sides of the Pacific. But we are striving for the general tendencies because it helps with the point I want to make.

The Philippine hierarchies of respect and power are deeply emotional. One steps outside the lines of authority at considerable risk. Try giving Lola some lip, or the priest some objection, or the doctor a question as to his diagnosis. There's hell to pay, hell to pay. Because the offended party takes the complaint or objection or rebellion personally.

In America, although rebellious dissent is recognized, it is generally not taken as a personal insult. The offending party may be considered thoughtless or brash, but not necessarily unkind or disrespectful, and the person with authority remains strong and warranting of respect. Only in the most severe of circumstances is respect lost. In the Philippines, authority and respect seem to ride on a whim, so must be protected at all cost.

In America, authority is a cat on the prowl. In the Philippines, authority is a cornered cat in a dead-end alley. American authority pushes out to embrace the underlings. Philippine authority defends itself from the underlings.

And the laws of the land reflect that.

Philippine constitutional mandates defend. They defend against foreign ownership, against the security threat of dual citizenship, and against threats to the family and established authority.

So libel laws are strict, defending the "honor" of those in power. And people in church are protected against the "Celdran Offenses". Where, in the US, the tendency is to rule in favor of freedoms for the individual, in the Philippines, the tendency is to rule in favor of the empowered.

The filing of a legal case in the Philippines has the effect of declaring someone guilty. The idea of innocent until proven guilty is not rooted in the Philippines. And an underling challenges a power-person at grave risk. The superior in the chain of respect and authority has a commanding presence. Just ask Senator Enrile, who dares the entire world to take him on.

And no one does.

Well, no one does, and gains by it. And Enrile is still in his Presidential chair.

So what does that promote, this legislation of protections for the empowered?

It legislates a shift in accountability for wrongs away from the empowered and to those of little power.

It is the legislation of authoritarianism.

And, indeed, it is the legislation of the whine. It is the casting off of responsibility for wrongdoing to the whistle blowers or the innocent or the weak. Just ask Senator Sotto what he thinks about whistle-blowers who don't like plagiarism.

The projection, to those of us who are outsiders, is that the power people in the Philippines are rather insecure.

Defensive.

Needing protection.

And with the protection comes "the great hiding", the sacrifice of candor and open expression and challenge. Even President Aquino is afraid to let the Public's eyes look at government information. Getting passage of FOI is like doing a root canal without anesthesia. The patient doth object.

Information is not seen as freeing the Philippines to produce, to work honestly and honorably. It is seen as a threat.

Authoritarianism hardens the heart and diminishes effort.

But something different is happening right now. It is dramatic. It gives us a chance to observe a profound sociological shift. Tectonic plates are on the move.

Social media are empowering the broad population to look, listen and speak.

Authoritarianism's underbelly is now upturned. The old sense of respect is being eroded.

The Catholic Church feels punished. Senator Sotto feels punished. Senator Enrile lashes out at everyone, defending his honor. President Aquino lashes out at the media for their relentless criticisms.

The Philippines is teetering.

The old authoritarian ways are no longer having the same clout. A thousand chickens have escaped from the henhouse and they are pecking at the fox's behind.

The people are relishing the ability to push for change.

People tell me to accept that Philippine culture is what it is, and not to overlay Western values onto it.

It is not me who is overlaying the values. It is Filipinos with the ability to communicate. I am simply depicting what I see. The Philippine model of authoritarian rule is under attack.

My own observation, looking at history around the planet, is that authoritarian forms of government don't perform well. Because they limit ideas. They stifle innovation and risk-taking. They hold back the power of the people in the belief that the ruling class is better at figuring things out.

I think the Philippines will progress because the cat is unleashed here, it is on the prowl. Or chickens are unleashed. I've lost track of my animals.

President Aquino will see that an FOI Bill is passed, or he will go down in history as just another failed authoritarian president in an era that values individual accomplishment. Because the individuals of Philippine society can no longer be silenced.

Authority is shifting to the people. We bear witness.

Nay, we help out.

And, yes, in the natural flow of things, the family rules of order will also start to weaken. New rules will come into play, nurturing ambition rather than undermining it.

That is not good or bad, I suspect. It is both. It simply is the evolution of freedom in an era where "the great hiding" is no longer possible.

President Aquino: Ups and Downs

I've written in the past that President Aquino has the opportunity to be recorded in the history books as a superb president, a perfect combination of his mother's good will and his father's courage and determination. As a statistician, but not a gambler, I would put the odds at about 60 to 40 that his legacy will be the most memorable since Marcos. . . and maybe even before.

How long has the Philippines been corrupt?

You read of corruption in Rizal's works. That was one of his main complaints, along with classism reflected in the overbearing power of the Catholic Church and the land barons. History also records that the last half of Spanish rule was characterized by rotating governors who had no real interest in the well-being of the Philippines and a great deal of interest in self-enrichment. So add to the 150 years of corrupt Spanish rule to 115 years of Filipino-sanctioned corruption begun when Aguinaldo grabbed onto a huge pile of borrowed Mexican pesos for his nation and his personal estate, and you have at least 265 years of corruption.

Corruption has been rampant from the Palace to Jose's pig sty where the tin roof was extracted from some rich guy's construction project by a contractor who swapped it to Jose for a small piglet. Theft in the Philippines is not really a crime. It is business as usual. How many ways do Filipinos cheat the system? I was a math major and I can't count that high. Johnny Lin's abacus would probably sizzle and catch fire from the heat of the calculations. We have old math, new math and Filipino math, which is base 10 plus a markup of 35% for all the "gratuities" along the supply channel.

It will take 20 years to root corruption out of the Philippines IF we can find future presidents willing to dig it out all the way from the Palace to the pig sty. President Aquino has only gotten to the first circle of corruption. It is an important circle because it curtails much of the big ticket thieving. The first circle includes his cabinet officials, top generals, and maybe a governor or two.  He might get to the second during his term, the junior lieutenants in each of the executive departments.

The legislature is supposed to be policing its own but seems rather to take pride in a kind of corruption of values, avoiding good ethical behavior like the plague, sitting on SALN's, jamming up the FOI Bill, plagiarizing away and threatening the very foundation of democracy, the freedom to speak, with a bizarre and harsh internet libel clause in the Cybercrime Bill.  When the Legislature operates with hidden agendas, sits on laws aimed at transparency and women's rights, passes laws aimed at intimidating expression, and coddles its own ethically challenged members, it burden's the President's legacy with non-action and bad deeds.

Face it, the Legislature is not leading the charge for freedom and transparency and high ethical standards. It does not have the same sense of righteousness and purpose as the Executive Branch.

And what about the third co-equal branch of our government, the Judiciary? Sorry to report that the courts have not even gotten to the first circle because Chief Justice Sereno's bench is still being fumigated. We should check back with the Supreme Court in a year to see if anything has improved.

But I digress. I'm talking about President Aquino here.

To get past the first circle of corruption, President Aquino has to take three big steps and he appears reluctant to take two of them.

1. Work the de-corruption effort through the cabinet posts into the top management layers across the nation. Then broader and deeper.

2. Prosecute extra-judicial murders.

3. Aggressively pursue transparency in government acts.

He is doing number 1, having given Corona the boot, jailed Arroyo, and being actively in the hunt for generals and governors who have been riding high on the taxpayer hog. Work is likely to become slow and hard because the corruption "out there" is smaller and sneakier and not always easy to spot. Take the matter of vote buying. Think we will see any in 2013?  Ahahahahaha ROFLMAO. Decentralized corruption is business as usual, as we saw regarding the roof of Jose's pig sty. Customs officials dipping, DENR dipping, LTO dipping, PNP dipping, judges dipping. I certainly have no statistics because it is a sumbitch to count, but I bet thousands of officials are dipping a hand in some poor slob's wallet. And that slob's wallet was probably obtained in a tax free swap or five-finger discount.

The two biggest achievements of the Aquino government are financial stability and the hammer brought to bear on corruption. And his cabinet secretaries are actively engaged in building better processes and results. But the President has to deal more explicitly with extrajudicial murders and freedom of information.

There are also some clear "downs" that the President might choose to learn from. We had a little flare-up about Under-Secretary Puno a few weeks ago. That buried the Sotto plagiarism and it was in turn buried by the Enrile-Trillanes mud-wrestling match on the floor of the Senate.

The media hereabouts certainly are single-minded, eh? They mosey from one scandal to the next, forgetting to cure, tie off or otherwise wrap up the previous one.

Some people were critical of the President on Puno, but I don't see what the big deal is. Robredo died, things were up in the air, and follow-through got a little disjointed, much akin to the chaos of the battlefield. It will all work out fine. Puno will be dealt with by proper investigation, not blogger investigations, and, if the President is wise and able to separate personal friendships from job performance, Puno will be invited to leave government. He's what is known as a "stigma" now.

The Trillanes back channel eruption revealed another stigma. It displays the President's main weakness, a tendency to adhere to friendships even when they go counter to the grain of his own success. Just as he supported Puno, the President backs Senator Trillanes even though it is fairly evident Trillanes is a hot-head with a non-diplomatic mouth. The incident seems simple enough: Trillanes has a contact of some clout in China and asked if he could work it. President Aquino said "yes". Indeed, the contact was instrumental in getting ships to stand down from the face off over Scarborough Shoals, but it did not get all Chinese boats to leave. The President's mistake was not saying "yes" to Trillanes. The mistake was not putting him under the direction of Foreign Affairs Secretary Del Rosario. It is never wise to go around one of your trusted executives. Plus it is a mistake to keep coddling Trillanes when he is clearly a loose cannon.

But these are minor incidents. They don't reflect the progress of the nation or the steam the economy is gathering.

The President often walks into the slapdash of media sensationalism when he speaks off the cuff, before all the facts are known and pieced together. The press then digs up its own facts and puts the pieces together in generally unkind picture that suggests the President is not trustworthy. The President would benefit by adopting a discipline of holding off on public comment regarding flare-ups until the facts can be put together and delivered to the press more comprehensively.

The President is not responsible for the incomprehensible ineffectual Legislature. He could get a lot more done if they worked harder on the RH Bill, FOI and other acts aimed at building a progressive Philippines. He should definitely work his contacts there, and jawbone them in public.

I rather see the President's "downs" as transactional, minor in the big-picture flow of history. Of concern, sure. Worth panic? For sure, not.

His ups are substantial. The Philippines is growing and stable and modernizing. Corruption is on the way out as a mainstream value.That's what I think will emerge as his legacy. To solidify that legacy, he needs to do more to:

• Push both openly and privately for Legislative action on key bills.

• Track down murderers and definitively end the era of extra-judicial killings.

• Actively back FOI and RH bills as essential steps toward a progressive Philippines. There is no reasonable reason for them to be held back.

• Develop two new personal disciplines: (1) be less reliant on friendships, and (2) refrain from speaking off the cuff to the press during flare-ups until all the facts are known.

The main point of this article is to suggest it is best to keep things in perspective, and not let a sensationalist press paint the picture we view as reality. The secondary point is to muse about what the President could do to build a striking legacy for himself and the Aquino family.

Sexual Predators, Bloggers and Senator Sotto

You da man! You da woman! You da Filipino who is clued in.

Who be da most reviled man in the Philippines these days, eh? Clue: It is not Puno. It's not Enrile. It's not even Trillanes.

What entity of government be da least respected in the Philippines these days, eh? Clue: this body passed a bill threatening to send Philippine free speech back into the stone ages whilst simultaneously ignoring gross ethical violations by one of its own. It also featured a mud-wrestling match yesterday that was only missing the babes and boobs in bikinis.

Congratulations to Top Blogger Raissa Robles on her latest article detailing how Senator Sotto is acting to back up his threat to go after bloggers who criticize him.  He appears to have surreptitiously inserted an amendment into the Cybercrime Bill that includes online libel as one of the crimes to be policed. The amendment was not objected to when it was proposed during the heat of the Corona impeachment trial, so it was added to the bill. Then it was approved, all the way up through the President's signature.

It is now the law of the land.

It appears to be a case of fine print ignored, or if not ignored, not thought through as to how the provision can be used to suppress free expression. It is a step backward in the Philippine drive toward a more respected human rights standing in the global and investment communities.

The Cybercrime Bill creates a policing unit under the Executive Branch:

• SEC. 24. Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center. — There is hereby created, within thirty (30) days from the effectivity of this Act, an inter-agency body to be known as the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC), under the administrative supervision of the Office of the President, for policy coordination among concerned agencies and for the formulation and enforcement of the national cybersecurity plan.”

So we will soon have a police force assigned to the internet. Rather like China. These cybercops will hunt down crimes. Hackers. Stalkers online. People peddling girls online. People selling sex online. Pedophiles online.  Bloggers issuing uncomfortable opinions online.

Here is what we are hypothetically likely to see:

• Senator Sotto once again steals another author's original work and uses it word for word without attribution.

• A blogger who runs a web site calls the senator a moron for doing it again. Commenters drop off their notes screaming "moron, moron!"

• Senator Sotto registers a complaint with the cybercops.

• The cybercops, knowing that a senator's reputation is of national security interest and must be protected, file a libel case against the blogger.

• The case gets kicked around for 5 years and eventually reaches the Supreme Court.

• The Supreme Court considers whether or not the description of Senator Sotto is disparaging. That is, is he a moron or not, in the context in which the word is used?

• The Supreme Court reads the Constitution and rules in favor of the blogger. The libel provision of the Cybercrime law is struck down as unconstitutional.

You see, this amendment has turned a well-intended law inside out, into a law that is potentially of use to suppress free speech.

Sex predators and bloggers, pulled together under one law.

Hell, this LAW is a libel to bloggers for equating online opinions with the acts of sex predators.

JoeAm will henceforth refer to the new law as the "Cybercrime and Totalitarianism Enhancement Law".

Well, the law is fact. And it will reshape what is said online. For sure, JoeAm will change his words.

Rather than say "Senator Sotto is an ethically challenged vindictive thug" he will say:

• "Is it possible that Senator Sotto is an ethically challenged vindictive thug?", or

• "Some might say Senator Sotto is an ethically challenged vindictive thug.", or

• "I fear that the good Senator Sotto will come across as an ethically challenged vindictive thug."

Or maybe my readers in America and Australia and Europe and the Middle East will send in comments calling Senator Sotto an ethically challenged vindictive thug.

To that point, I have amended the legal terms of this blog found in the tab "Policy and Terms".

The paragraph that once said:

• Comments are a shared property of the commenter and the Society of Honor. Excerpts from comments may be freely taken and re-published as long is attribution is granted to the commenter (name or alias) and the Society of Honor by Joe America.

Has been changed to read:

• Comments are the property of the commenter who grants the Society of Honor full right of re-publication and use. Excerpts from comments may be freely taken and re-published as long is attribution is granted to the commenter (name or alias) and the Society of Honor by Joe America.

This little tweak assigns responsibility for the content of comments to the commenter.

The problem with the Cybercrime and Totalitarianism Enhancement Law is that it puts bloggers who welcome robust commentary in a bind. The bloggers have a choice: (1) tighten up their editorial ship and exclude any comment that anyone might conceivably consider libelous (a virtually impossible task), or (2) allow robust and open commentary and significantly increase their risk of getting sued for publishing libelous words.

I am not an attorney and am wholly unqualified to parse comments for possible libelous content. I furthermore find it offensive that this law would insist that I become an agent of the State's newfound totalitarian twist to dampen free speech.

I am for free speech. I am for people being able to call JoeAm an unmitigated moron, an asshole of the Nth degree, and to instruct him to get his ass back to the States. You see, I can counter words with words. That is the beauty of freedom.

If my response to an insult is to try to jail or fine the author of the offensive words, I am, at heart, a totalitarian, vindictive thug.

It is too bad that senators who many would consider ethically challenged and ignorant as to the importance of freedom of expression don't get it.

They will, it time.

The internet. A new era. A new power.

Use it well.

That, after all, is the intent of the Cybercrime legislation. To stop crimes.

It is also a useful medium with which to call out the ethically challenged. After all, the Senate appears unwilling to take up this righteous task.

And so the entire Senate is called out, too. Some might say they are not much better than clowns when they see an ethical violation right on the floor of the Senate and merely turn their heads away.

Ignore a gross ethics violation. Pass a law that may be used to suppress free speech.

You can write your own description as to what kind of leaders these are and what kind of future the Philippines has with them at the helm.

Private Venturing Politics in the Philippines

I'm going to make a connection here and invite you to extend your thinking a bit to grasp it. And maybe extend your acts, too, if you have that kind of influence.

The issue facing us is the fundamental ineffectiveness of Philippine democratic institutions and processes. There are three branches of government, supposedly co-equal. Here is a rough idea of the status of each:

• Executive. Led by a capable, honest family "name", Noynoy Aquino. Mr. Aquino tends to favor friends for high positions, whether because of confidence or comfort, it is hard to tell.  He rewards those who have worked to fulfill his ideals. He requires honesty and straight dealing and expects a lot from subordinates, so his picks are generally good ones. In that way, he is a good leader. He also has a lot of activity in the pipeline as all of his cabinet secretaries have their priorities and marching orders. Still, he does not press forward independently on important social programs like RH or FOI, and never something shocking like divorce. So progressive initiatives get bogged down.

Source: Mars One Project

• Legislature. Stuck up like an engine filled with Mighty Bond. The Legislature could correct the weaknesses of Executive by pressing forward with bills to modernize the Philippines, but it does not. Indeed, the Legislature is largely frozen in time, stuck between Catholic/Trapos values and sporadic efforts by younger thinkers to modernize. But the progressives have no power. When the majority leader of the senate, Senator Sotto, can bog RH deliberations down by making four lengthy speeches on a subject that could easily be dealt with in 10 minutes, we know we are dealing with an organization mired in political game-playing. That his arguments are stolen from others means he has little personal pride invested in thinking things through honestly and honorably. He's a master game-player. The Senate is not energized by public interest. The House of Representatives is younger, more flexible, and will march to the tune of the President because it is in their pork-laden interest to do so. But the Senate gums up good works. The Legislature is not effective. Period.

• Courts. This is the biggest nightmare imaginable. The courts are jammed with no sense of priority, corrupt methods, and damn little justice. People who are legitimately damaged cannot get damages corrected because it takes money and so much time that they give up. 25 years to deal with the Hacienda case and it is still open for judgments. New Chief Justice Sereno is facing jealousy and bitterness among the justices she is supposed to lead and, indeed, seems the lightweight they claim she is by calling to God for strength rather than intellect. Two glimpses of hope for a new environment: SALN's of Supreme Court Justices have been released, and a new bill has been passed to get some load off the courts, namely the requirement that courts certify citizen requests for name and date corrections to birth certificates. However the mass of the judicial mess is huge, and it will take years to correct.

So we have an Executive that is sound and honest, and could lead the nation strongly forward, but chooses not to in areas that provoke hostility from the Church (RH) or power-people (FOI). The Legislative and Judicial branches of government are lost to the public as their representatives, respectively, of social modernization and justices.

Switch gears entirely.

A few days ago, a Dutch consortium announced its plans to put people on Mars in 2028 as a private venture. Here is the link to the article. If you take the time to review the brief video imbedded in the article, you will hear one of the principals explain that by going private, the initiative can proceed forthrightly, faster and cheaper because it does not get bogged down in the political bickering, or the shove and push of vested interests who are behind the politicians.

The program will be funded by selling rights to video the mission as a reality television show.

Is there a lesson here?

Yes.

If you want poor women of the Philippines to be educated, and to have condoms, you would be better off to organize and fund the effort privately than beat your head against the congressional brick heads and walls. You can seek donations from wealthy Filipinos. If they don't have a passion for Philippine well-being, go to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation or the Clinton Foundation or other global organizations set up to advance the well-being of women on planet man.

Go around the Executive and Legislative blockades. Reduce them to the irrelevancy they are striving so hard to achieve.

If you want the FOI Bill passed, organize to publicize the critical information that is being held back and make sure people know: (1) why it is critical, and (2) who is hiding it. You turn over one rock at a time. And make sure that people know which legislators, and who within Executive, are supporting the hiding of information from the public. President Aquino made the point in his 2012 SONA that the public is boss.

• "I stand before you today as the face of a government that knows you as its Boss and draws its strength from you. I am only here to narrate the changes that you yourselves have made possible." (President Aquino, 2012 SONA)

Prove it. Prove that you are the boss.

The only organization I see that is proactive in representing public interest is the PCIJ, the Philippine Center of Investigative Journalism. A number of blog sites agitate for progressive acts but they are fractionalized and, not unified, represent irritating flies on an elephant's butt. They are not a tiger, strong and threatening.

That's the take-away I get in looking at the entire Senate ignoring the blogging firestorm over Senator Sotto's outrageously bad ethics.

There are no organized women's groups having heavy impact. We can hear a lot of sporadic shouting from here or from there. The noise is mostly ignored by leaders who are listening to the louder, organized cry of the CBCP.

There is no VOICE for women.

More flies.

Perhaps the Filipino penchant for doing things "my way" gets in the way of organizing to speak as a unified voice (refer to the recent blog "How Filipino Personal Independence Undermines Community").

Well, ladies, I'd say you ought to get your act together, privately.

And FOI mavens, build your own ship to Mars.

And RH backers? Forget about that irrelevancy called the Senate, organize, and go straight to poor women with your messages and assistance.

The Senate does not want to do its duty to drive the Philippines progressively forward?

Let them stew there in their own muck. Irrelevant.

Mars or bust!

Privatize, oganize and modernize.

The Awakening Beast: Public Indignation (Angry Maude)

Guest Blog by: Angry Maude

(Editor: The scheduled blog "How Filipino Personal Independence Undermines Community" will be delayed one day so that this guest article can be run on a timely basis.)

I see that a lot of commentary has moved past Senator Sotto's transgressions to the willingness of our so-called esteemed Senators to turn their eyes, to duck their heads, to walk away from a blatant, arrogant insult to public honor and high values. Not to mention, Senate honor.

I like Senator Santiago. She is a bright woman and my role model. But today I have to disagree with her. Senator Santiago is correct in only one way. Copying a paragraph from a blog is not such a big deal.

ANGRY MAUDE

But every which way after that, she is wrong. It is a big deal if an entire speech is crafted on the creative efforts and knowledge of others, with the words twisted to mean what the writers did not mean to say. It is a big deal to deny first the theft, then  acknowledge it and dismiss it as innocent. It is a big deal to criticize the public for doing their duty to condemn bad behavior. It is a big deal to propose an act of vengeance against those who spoke out for higher values, a blogging bill to silence public expression.

No, no, Senator Santiago, that is a VERY BIG DEAL. Idol or not, you are wrong.

Blaming bloggers for the incident reflects a huge ignorance of what the public's role in a democratic nation is all about.

Condemning bloggers in this instance is very much like condemning a whistle-blower for having courage and high values.

Public expression is a vital check and balance in democracy.

To silence public expression would be like eliminating the courts. Just letting the police determine guilt or innocence. Who really needs that check and balance on justice? Cops have good values.

It would be akin to eliminating the legislature. Just letting the Executive Branch dictate laws. Who really needs a Legislature, especially if it is not interested in doing good acts?

To silence public expression would be to return the Philippines to the dark ages where leaders meet in secret smoky rooms and hatch dark schemes hidden from public eyes.

This is an attitude exactly the opposite of transparency and forthright governance.

It goes against the grain of stability and enlightenment brought to the Philippines by President Aquino's dedication to good governance.

The Senate is out of step. Out of step with the direction of the Philippines.

The Senate is not leading.

It is just sitting there. Or worse, hiding.

• Senator Sotto has spoken. He has held the floor for a long time.

• Four senators have mumbled a few words of support for the Sotto ideals.

• One senator has criticized plagiarism.

• Seventeen senators have remained silent.

Oh integrity, sweet integrity, I fear thy name is not Senator.

Senate Silence on Sotto

I wonder as to the great silence emerging from the Senate regarding the transgressions of Senator Sotto, to wit: (1) plagiarizing other people's copyrighted material, (2) using outdated material in a misleading way and out of context, (3) denying there was anything seriously wrong with what occurred, and (4) expressing absolutely zero remorse for the transgressions.

The Senate appears willing to let Senator Soto get away with it.

What do the laws say with regard to what the Senate OUGHT to be doing?

The Constitution of the Philippines:

• Rule X. The Committees.Sec. 13. (2) Committee on Ethics and Privileges. - Seven (7) members. All matters relating to the conduct, rights, privileges, safety, dignity, integrity and reputation of the Senate and its Members.

It seems to me that the Senate is currently the laughing stock of the Philippines due to Senator Sotto's abuses and refusal to accept responsibility for them. Perhaps the Senate believes its integrity is enhanced by being the butt of so many jokes. We are all just comedians around here, eh? Clowns abound.

In 1989, two years after adoption of the Constitution, the Legislature promulgated and approved Republic Act 6713 which is the basic code of conduct and ethical standards for public officials. Here are some pertinent excerpts:

• REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6713. AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, TO UPHOLD THE TIME-HONORED PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC OFFICE BEING A PUBLIC TRUST, GRANTING INCENTIVES AND REWARDS FOR EXEMPLARY SERVICE, ENUMERATING PROHIBITED ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES  

• SECTION 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. — (A) Every public official and employee shall observe the following as standards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties:

• (b) Professionalism. — Public officials and employees shall perform and discharge their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill.. . .

• (c) Justness and sincerity. — Public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest. . . .

SECTION 11. Penalties. — (a) Any public official or employee, regardless of whether or not he holds office or employment in a casual, temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity, committing any violation of this Act shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months' salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, or removal depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agency. If the violation is punishable by a heavier penalty under another law, he shall be prosecuted under the latter statute. Violations of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court of competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold public office.

The mechanisms are in place to address Senator Sotto's transgressions: (1) the Committee , which is both the investigative and judicial body, and (2) the Law. The Law is clear. Professionalism, good morals, good customs, public interest.

Senator Sotto does not define the law or his innocence based on what his representative counsel states. He is an interested party. The other interested party is the Public.

Who represents the Public on this matter?

Why is the Senate silent?

It is time to move this matter past Senator Sotto and his horrendous professional behavior and ask why the Institution that is responsible for writing laws is inclined not to enforce them? I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that:

• Senator Sotto broke the law by failing to refrain from doing acts contrary to good morals and good customs.

• The Senate, by not fulfilling its obligations under the Constitution, is also breaking the law.

So here we have a fundamental reason as to why there is a wide scale collapse of respect for and obedience to laws across the beautiful Philippine landscape.

No discipline. No insistence on right over wrong . . . at the highest level . . . in one of the three co-equal branches of government.

But, hey, you don't care, Senators, I don't care!

Watching the clowns. It's more fun in the Philippines!

Philippine Ethics: A Mirror to Values

Ethics mirror the fundamental values of a group or community or nation.

"Ethical", an adjective according to the Humpty Dumpty New World Dictionary, means "well principled". "Unethical", its opposite, pertains to unprincipled behavior. These are acts that may or may not be illegal but are outside of accepted convention.

Honesty is considered to be an ethical quality. You are unlikely to be thrown in jail for being a liar, but if you are a congressman or a priest you might be condemned and have to pay a penalty. Honesty is not a requirement of politicians RUNNING for office, it would seem. But in the U.S., once they are IN OFFICE, it becomes an ethic. So it would seem ethics can have a measure of elasticity.

"Ethical" attaches to a lot of jobs, especially those that represent the people, or provide services to the people. Police should be highly ethical. So should judges. So should senators and representatives, and the President.

In the Philippines, values are loosey goosey. Wobbly. Shaky. Sometimes I would question if "ethical" is even a term that some  powerful people know or believe in. After all, it frequently tends to conflict with their strong self-interest.

• Witness former Chief Justice Corona.

• The Ampatuan Clan

• Former President Arroyo.

• Senator Sotto.

When each individual defines the law for himself because the nation's law disciplines are in disarray, then ethics become wobbly, for sure.

In the Philippines it is ethical to plan a coup but remain in public service after the coup fails (Senator Enrile).

In the Philippines, it is ethical to have been married to a murderer but get elected to Congress (Rep. Marcos).

In the Philippines it is ethical to steal material from a blogger, change the meaning of the words to be 180 degrees opposite of what was intended, deny that the theft is wrong, blame the people who are blowing whistles all over town . . . and remain in office, representing the best of the best of Philippine citizenry (Senator Sotto).

Senator Sotto, in a more disciplined, more ethical public service arena, would be hauled before an ethics committee and reprimanded or possibly asked to resign.

Not in the Philippines. The ethical standards reflect the nation's essential values. And that does not speak well for the Philippines.

Other senators keep their yaps shut, I suppose because they don't want to be attacked for their own ethical slips.

One way in which the United States and the Philippines differ is how discipline in the public arena is enforced. In the Philippines, the Ombudsman is responsible for policing the whole of the Philippines. Given all the sleazy deals going down across the land, she has her plate filled to overflow and is standing in a pile of excess.

In the United States, most agencies have some kind of "Ethics Panel" or office that polices the behavior of its own members. Congress, for example, polices itself. If a congressman goes wayward, say, by getting caught in an extramarital affair or lying and cheating or physically harassing someone on his staff, he catches a lot of heat. If he becomes an embarrassment to the institution of Congress, the Ethics Committee will haul him in for reprimand and even suggest he resign.

In the Philippines, nothing happens.  The Senate Ethics Committee did review Senator Villar's activities regarding the charge that he moved a freeway, but he is still in office.

The notion of "responsibility" is as soft here as is the notion of "ethics". Rather than disciplined enforcement of high standards of behavior, we see excuses and rationalizations. Back to Sotto.

The reputation of Congress as a whole does not seem to get attached to the wayward behavior of a given member.

I'm thinking that the bill now in the Senate called the "Political Party Development Bill" will be a strong step toward correcting loose ethical behavior by removing personality from political parties and replacing it with ideals. Hopefully, one of the ideals will be to meet a certain level of honesty and honor in speeches.

Senator Edgardo Angara  is sponsoring the bill. He says too much today depends on "moneyed personalities", and congressmen too easily shift allegiances to get close to the money. In his presentation of the bill on the floor of the Senate, Senator Angara said:

•  “Our politics remains very bad, breeding poor governance and corruption that stifles the delivery of public services. This is because the structure of our politics, especially of our political party system, is flawed.”

The goals of the bill are as follows:

• institutionalize reforms in the financing of electoral campaigns, promote accountability and transparency;

• provide financial subsidies to political parties, to augment their expenditures for campaign purposes and for party development;

• promote party loyalty and discipline; and

• encourage and support continuing voter education and civic literacy programs.

Amendments likely to be inserted will levy strong penalties against "Political Turncoatism", create a campaign finance department within COMELEC, and develop strong measures for funding allocations.

Opponents argue that passing the bill will give the current administration an enduring advantage because his party will be very strong. They also argue that banning an individual from running in an election if he or she changes political party is too severe a penalty.

It seems to me this is an important step toward developing stronger ethics in Congress.

Better to do it now than when there is a jerk in the President's chair.

I like this bill.