The honest ‘Joker’

It came straight from the horse’s mouth. As ‘Joker’ puts it, why should the Senate write its own obituary? He could not have said it better. No one can improve on such an ho-nest statement. That is the plain and simple truth on why the Senate is refusing to cooperate with the House of Representatives despite the Constitution’s mandate for Congress to propose amendments and revisions. Joker’s effrontery may shock but he is a notch better than Senate chief Frank Drilon (who, by the way, if we are to believe the latest SWS survey is now more ‘popular.’ ) who cloaks his self-interest for stonewalling charter change with an alleged high-minded desire for a more representative convention. Neither does he have any compunction of turning around to say privately to others ‘no way will we give up our posts (CNP: and perks which run into billions without auditing.) Indeed, the task of more responsible citizens is to dig into the perks they find so hard to give up. One very reliable source says a senator initiating a hearing in aid of legislation receives half a million pesos for the task, no questions asked.) Drilon presides over the least performing Senate in its entire history even if it appears that they are very busy with investigations.

But if we are to believe the latest SWS survey, Drilon has allegedly improved his approval ratings. Something is definitely wrong with this picture. I wonder what sort of questions were asked and of whom these were asked. Forgive my ignorance but either the ‘people’ of SWS surveys do not understand what they elect officials for (to work) or the survey groups are hired to elicit answers to make him ‘popular’. After all, he is third in line for the presidency, maybe even second if the ‘moralistic’ opposition also rejects Noli de Castro.

That, of course will likely happen if we do not shift to parliamentary government and why some members of the Senate, headed by the Drilon kind and honest Joker will move heaven and earth to block it. Hmm. Isn’t that just as self-serving as their accusations against those in favor of charter change? To be fair, there is just no one and nothing in this world that is not without self-interest. That is the law of self-preservation. The point is how to funnel that self-interest so it serves a greater good. One way is through institutions that temper this self-interest. It is the reason for restructuring our form of government – that we can have check and balance other than by an expensive non-performing, gridlock promoting senate that has made it impossible to move this country forward.

I am afraid that in my book a non-performing Senate and a senate chief on top of this non-performance are a disgrace and a disservice to the country. This ought to be the first stop for those who seek to make Filipinos more politically aware – that they know the difference between good and bad governance as they see it and not to rely on interested parties or survey groups hired to say so. Drilon cannot now claim the right to lead this country by the technicality of a machinated ‘popularity’ based on his support for ousting a President whose guilt has not been proven by law.

Either the ‘people’ of SWS surveys do not understand what they elect officials for or the survey groups intended to elicit the answers to make him ‘popular’ despite his non-performance. It reinforces the suspicion that there is a determined and concerted effort to unseat President GMA by hook or by crook.

* * *

There is a word in English which best describes an experience I had after grueling debates at Concom deliberations: serendipity. It is defined as a ‘gift for discovery’ or more accurately a natural gift for making useful discoveries by accident.

Hardly talked about was whether to use ‘Almighty God’ or ‘Divine Providence’ in our Constitution’s preamble. There were others who have had more experience in constitution making and had their reasons for preferring ‘Almighty God’. This position was led by Bishop Ephraim Tendero of the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches (PCEC) and almost to a man endorsed by the rest of the group with a few exceptions. Indeed, if I remember right, there were only two of us, STAR colleague, Alex Magno and myself who voted against using ‘Almighty God.’

I preferred Divine Providence because it seemed kinder, less involved less harsh than Almighty God, a term used again and again by those who would subject lesser mortals through the fear of God. But it was a mere gut feeling. I was surprised at my own vehemence for preferring Divine Providence without understanding why, other than because to me it signified kindness rather than harshness, a loving merciful God than one who is punishing and fearsome. Preambles of our constitutions in the past invoked Divine Providence while the 1987 used Almighty God.

Only later did I discover other reasons for my position. It was through a book entitled, The Freethinkers – A History of American Secularism by Susan Jacoby which was given to me at Christmas. I discovered that the issue was at the heart of the making of the American Constitution: Almighty God or Divine Providence represented a much more involved debate on secularism or religious fundamentalism that began in its founding and has lasted to this day. It was also the foundation of the separation of church and state in the American constitution.

Today, freethinkers are discovering their intellectual roots not as their critics would have it, but as they would want to understand themselves. A free thinker is not necessarily anti-God or a non believer in God. Indeed, according to Ms. Jacoby, the roots of American free-thought is an inclusiveness that encompasses ‘many forms of rationalist belief.’ It runs the gamut from those who are anti-religious – those who regard religion as superstition and wish to reduce its influence to those who revere some form of God or Providence but at odds with orthodox religious authority.

To American freethinkers and founding fathers like Jefferson, Washington and Franklin they believed in a "watchmaker God who set the universe in motion but subsequently took no active role in the affairs of men." It was a rationalist approach to a fundamental question of earthly existence, human beings should be governed not by a supernatural father but by a reliance on reason and evidence from the natural world. It was this conviction rooted in Enlightenment philosophy that carried the day when the former revolutionaries gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to write the American Constitution. Indeed there is no mention of God in its preamble.

American secularists looked to a future in which the spread of literacy, knowledge and individual liberty would prove more powerful than reactionary, long entrenched political and religious institutions. They did not foresee the tenacity of religious orthodoxy or what would today be called religious fundamentalism in American life. They established a government that respected, and in many ways mirrored the balance between enlightenment rationalism and religion – a Divine Providence.

* * *

My e-mail is [email protected]