Freedom of choice

No communion for population planning workers. At last the Roman Catholic Church is being consistent. It is within its remit to excommunicate those who do not obey its authority. The problem begins when it goes beyond and arrogates unto itself the right to block policy for the rest who are not Roman Catholic believers. There are many Roman Catholics only in name and practice their religion selectively. They believe and practice modern birth control which includes artificial means. These nominal Catholics get away scot-free and I doubt that they are even oppressed by guilt. They follow their consciences, received communion and are regarded as staunch Catholics. Most of them are middle-class and worldly-wise.

The government’s population management policy means to make information on a wide range of birth control methods, artificial or natural available to both the rich and the poor. It merely puts the uninformed poor at par with those who are better informed and have the means to act according to their conscience. The moral underpinning of the state’s population management policies is freedom of choice. That freedom will come only if there is an adequate information program for everybody. That, I believe is the heart of ‘Ligtas Buntis’ and not the debate on whether overpopulation hinders economic development. It may be true that some legislators are wrongly focused on economic statistics in defense of HB3773 or what has been called the Responsible Parenthood and Population Management Bill. But if they are wrongly focused so are those who trot economic statistics and argue that it is bad governance that is at fault for the lack of development. The issue is about fairness.

* * *

An interesting perspective on terrorism from Edwin [email protected], but I will have to excerpt. It is his opinion that these essays from Ralph Peters may give a deeper insight to the Mindanao conflict. The essays are about ‘The New Warriors Class, the ‘Next Crusade’ and ‘Winning Against Warriors.’

Peters contends that although US soldiers are brilliantly prepared militarily, warriors are not their typical enemy. They are untrained for this kind of warfare. He says warriors are erratic primitives with shifting allegiance, used to violence and with no stake in civil orders. He argues that "unlike soldiers, warriors do not play by our rules, do not respect treaties, and do not obey orders they do not like." These warlords are scattered around the world from Somalia to Myanmar/Burma, from Afghanistan to Yugoslavia. And I would add the Philippines. "In Georgia an ex-convict has become a kingmaker, and in Azerbaijan a warlord who marched on the capitol with a handful of wheezing armored vehicles became Prime Minister. In Chechnya, on the northern slopes of the Caucasus, a renegade general carved out the world’s first state run entirely by gangsters – not the figurative gangsters of high Stalinism, but genuine black marketeers, murderers, drug dealers, and pimps.

In one of our conversations, a former Libyan ambassador to the Philippines told me the armed fighters in Mindanao consider their guns as a farmer would his ploughshare. It is their source of living. Given that context it will not be possible to convert that warrior to a peaceful way of life. He’s never known it. If there is no war, he will look or create the war in which he will thrive.

For this challenge, Peters argues for a two-track approach which would actively separate the populace from the warrior who must be eliminated without compromise. In this sense much work needs to be done to disengage the ordinary, law-abiding moderate Muslim from these warriors. If we do not succeed in separating the two, then we are merely widening the conflict. We must be able to demonstrate to ordinary Muslims that the state protects them equally as any other citizen.

I agree with Peters that in such a campaign, we are forced to ask fundamental questions about ourselves as well as our national and individual identities and values. "The kind of warfare we are witnessing now and will see increasingly in the future raises even more basic issues, challenging many of the assumptions in which liberal Western culture indulges. What is man’s nature? Are we really the children of Rousseau and of Benetton ads, waiting only for evil governments to collapse so that our peaceable, cotton-candy natures can reveal themselves? Or are we killing animals, self organized into the disciplinary structures of civilization because the alternative is mutual anarchic annihilation?... Is all human life truly sacred, no matter what crimes the individual or his collective may commit? Until we are able to answer such questions confidently, the members of the new warrior class will simply laugh at us and keep on killing."

* * *

MISCELLANY: What Isagani Cruz wrote on our justice system especially with the Erap and Imelda cases is true. But how many are really indignant that it has failed? Not many, otherwise the criminal neglect would not have happened. The late Sandiganbayan Justice Francis Garchitorena (God bless his soul) had an interesting explanation. He said that very early on when the trials on Marcos and Imelda’s plunder began, it was resolved that the justice system would adhere to the requirements of law. He blames prosecutors who did not do their job well. He may be right but these are extraordinary cases and should have been tried extraordinarily. It was not possible to convict on the basis of the normal rules of evidence if the whole point of the crime was to hide the evidence and ultimately elude justice. The Marcos and Erap cases were political crimes not subject to ordinary rules of evidence or legal homework. I would think that it would have been possible to convict without sacrificing justice. If we had moved to declare a revolutionary government then, we certainly would have the political means to convict the crimes and achieve a closure that has continued to elude us today.

Once in a while, I see Imelda Marcos in parties and diplomatic functions. She projects a sorry figure, attempting to relive those glory days and ignored generally as a has been. Unfortunately the individual lesson has not been translated to a public lesson. The lack of a conviction of the Marcos and Erap plunders is seen as a lesson on how to commit crime and get away with it.

Some senators misunderstand the public clamor against them. They can have the best PR but it will not help in the growing campaign for a unicameral legislature. The advocacy is for more efficient lawmaking. It is not against individual senators. If we had a single chamber (call it senate if you like, as the Polish call the equivalent of our lower house) the VAT bill would have been passed swiftly. But then we would have to amend the Constitution and that is what they do not want. E-mail is [email protected]