No knock-out punches here

Despite their vigorous public posturing, neither side scored a knock-out punch.

According to Executive Secretary Eddie Ermita, the "cannonization" (a term invented by imaginative texters) of protesters last Friday was "justified na justified," because certain things they did were not right ("hindi tama"). The E.S. was obviously referring to police video purporting to show a man in polo barong rushing from the demonstrators’ side to pick up a pistol he had apparently dropped earlier.

On the other hand, the protesters assert that their civil and human rights were violated when the police refused to allow them to march from San Sebastian church to San Beda on Mendiola street in order to continue their "prayer rally." The police and fire personnel then aggravated the violation when they used water cannon to disperse the rally participants who insisted on pressing on towards Mendiola.

Both contentions are flawed. The administration rationale cannot stand legal or factual scrutiny. The video of the gunman was hardly the smoking gun it is made out to be. The rally leaders gloss over some critical facts in their account of what happened. The protest action, which was no mere prayer rally, varied the terms of the permit granted.

Senator Jamby Madrigal admitted that the man was her bodyguard. What in heaven’s name was he doing among the protesters carrying a gun? If the firearm had accidentally discharged when dropped, whether or not a stray bullet hit anyone, a bloody riot could easily have broken out.

Batas Pambansa 880, a Marcos-era law which is ironically cited by both sides to support their arguments, includes as a "prohibited act" the "carrying of a deadly or offensive weapon or device such as firearm, pillbox, bomb and the like" within one hundred meters from the area of the public assembly (Sec. 13(g)(1)).

The fervor of the bosing is put in some doubt when he or she, a government official, joins protests against the government, attended by a retinue which includes a bodyguard who is armed with a gun authorized by that same government.

The pobrecito bodyguard is in the wrong job if he weeps when summoned to explain his actions. After all, he is expected to hurl his body in the path of a projectile aimed at his boss. Compared with that prospect, facing an inquisitive and irritated PNP General Vidal Querol would seem to be a breeze.

And, by the way, the reference by the Senadora to eating bullets for breakfast is not only unoriginal, it is also incorrect. I believe she meant eating "death threats" for breakfast. Eating bullets for breakfast evokes unseemly images of a latter-day Annie Oakley or gangster moll nibbling on thumb tacks for appetizers.

Still and all, the video of a butter-fingered sikyo frantically trying to retrieve a weapon he shouldn’t have dropped in the first place, even if it’s true he dropped it during a scuffle with the police contingent, does not fully explain, much less justify, the cannonization of Tito Guingona, Oca Orbos, Satur Ocampo, Fr. Robert Reyes, et al.

All versions of the tape, whether that shot by the PNP or by TV news crews, indicate that the running bodyguard made his move well after the water cannon had opened fire. His fast break, umbrella in hand, could therefore not have triggered the cannonade. There had to be other provocations, such as the protesters’ alleged sudden detour towards Mendiola, their lack of a permit for any venue other than San Sebastian church, or the clear indication that the protest was more political action than prayer rally.

In addition, if the PNP wants to rely on provisions of B.P. 880 to justify its actions, it should apply all the provisions, not only those which appear to advance its cause. Under that law, the operative policy is "maximum tolerance" not "calibrated preemptive response" (Sec. 10(a)). Subparagraph (c) of Section 10 prohibits the use of "…water cannons or any similar anti-riot device" unless "the public assembly is attended by actual violence or serious threats of violence, or deliberate destruction of property."

There are also reports that police commanders on the ground robotically insist on evidence of rally permits, even when organizers show proof of applications filed with a city government. But Section 6(b) of B.P. 880 says: "The mayor or any official acting shall act on the application within two (2) working days from the date the application was filed, failing which, the permit shall be deemed granted." Functionally ignorant ground commanders are a menace to society and should not be allowed to direct anti-riot units.

Rally organizers should not play games either. B.P. 880 clearly requires that a written permit is required for any person or groups to organize or hold a public assembly in a public place. There is no exception for "prayer rallies." The only exceptions are assemblies in designated "freedom parks," private property or "the campus of a government-owned and operated educational institution." Unless B.P. 880 is invalidated for unconstitutionality, there is no escaping its requirements.

It appears that in last Friday’s demo, the rally organizers did obtain a permit for an assembly at San Sebastian church. But somebody apparently announced that the rally would move to the San Beda church on Mendiola street. Because that additional venue was not indicated on the permit, the demonstrators were stopped several times on their way to San Beda. At that point, some rally organizers took the position that a permit was not necessary since all they were doing was holding a "prayer rally."

The police insisted that the mere presence of clergy did not mean that all the assembly would do was pray, especially since oust-GMA chants were evident. And included among the protesters were those who hadn’t prayed to God since they began mouthing Communist orthodoxies about religion being an opiate of the people. Besides, some protesters were allegedly seen making a bee-line for side streets which would bring them dangerously close to Malacañang Palace itself.

From then on, things unraveled quite rapidly, with determined and undeterred demonstrators facing off nervous and itchy-fingered police and firemen. What ensued, including the "cannonization" of prominent personalities, was predictable.

The divisions so evident over the PNP’s handling of last Friday’s rally don’t easily fall along pro and anti-GMA lines. Neither the police nor the rally organizers and participants can lay claim to pristinely proper or lawful conduct. Although the events last Friday evening made for riveting and somewhat disturbing television, it will not, with the advantage of clearer perspective, prove to be a turning point in the GMA saga.