In the right side of history

In the current Philippine Senate controversy, which has to be resolved soon if the Senate is to function and proceed with the impeachment trial, are interesting historical facts and events that were resurrected. To resolve the issue of what constitutes a quorum in the Senate, the case of Avelino v. Cuenco which happened in 1949 was cited as a precedent, that 12 senators is a quorum in the absence of two senators.

The Cayetano group, which became the minority after the Gatchalian group convened with 12 senators, argued that this precedent doesn’t hold as this case was ruled under the 1935 Constitution and not in the 1987 Constitution. This issue may end up in the Supreme Court, but the court may decline to resolve this, as it’s a political issue better left to the Senate. In the Avelino-Cuenco case the SC dismissed the Avelino petition, adopting a hands-off policy regarding internal Senate politics.

The more important dimension of this Senate problem is control of Senate leadership. The Cayetano group is perceived to want to control of the Senate to derail the impeachment trial of VP Duterte and protect the senators on their side from corruption allegations on the DPWH scandals, and other anomalous business practices. The Gatchalian group, which includes senators also implicated in the DPWH scandals are viewed as the lesser evil. It certainly looks like a replay of the Avelino-Cuenco controversy.

In 1949, Sen. Avelino contested/prevented a Senate quorum to stop Sen. Tañada from delivering a privilege speech accusing Avelino of corruption. According to history, Avelino pleaded with his partymates, including President Quirino, that the exposé shouldn’t be allowed and that as senators they should have the leeway of making money from government transactions, hence the famous quotation attributed to him: “What are we in power for?” Avelino was later suspended from the Senate for one year.

Quirino, who was quietly backing the anti-corruption clean up of his own party, was elected for a four-year term from 1949 to 1953. His administration was still beset by corruption allegations, and he was defeated by Magsaysay on an anti-corruption and anti-terrorism campaign platform.

The similarity and familiarity of the Cayetano-Gatchalian to the Avelino-Cuenco events are uncanny and providential. Avelino was ousted as Senate president and Cuenco became Senate president, like the ouster of Cayetano and Gatchalian taking over. The corruption issues were also about tax evasion and discrepancies in the personal financial declarations, and kickbacks from the sale of U.S. surplus military properties. It’s also a lesson on being in the right side of history and the way forward for Philippine politics and government.

Being in the right side of history is a belief that society is moving towards greater truth and justice, of being on the virtuous side of progress, that human rights, equality, and social progress are moving upward. It’s a phrase to describe actions, beliefs, and policies deemed morally correct, progressive, and will be validated by future generations.

The counter-argument against these beliefs is that history is written by the victors, so there’s no such thing as the right side of history. Over the years, this argument have been invalidated, as the advent and progress of information and communication technologies have unearthed historical narratives, (including from oral histories), from all sides of winners and losers. Histories from all sources are now available, and more so of the present events/stories, with the proliferation of social media and unlimited data storage capacities. So, being in the right side of history, matters more now and in the future.

Most Filipino politicians are on the wrong side of history, and the Cayetano group is clearly on the wrong side in this controversy. It should be noted that the most progressive and peaceful countries in the world, like Singapore and the Nordic countries have more politicians in the right side of history.