Origin of our liberties

Bencyrus Ellorin /

FOR over a hundred years, the Filipino people have experimented with democracy.

The Katipunan fought for the Filipino nation against the Spanish colonizers of 300 years. Soon after, the Americans ambushed Philippine independence. Officially, the promulgation of the 1935 Constitution ushered out American colonization, but was briefly disrupted by the Japanese occupation during World War II. Now historians are still debating whether the real independence was June 12, 1898 when the Philippine flag flew as the Spanish went home or on July 4, 1946, the signing of the Treatise of Manila, when the US granted Philippines its independence.

The emergence of the Filipino nation has been inspired by democratic and libertarian values. This is inspired by vital changes in governance in Europe, where members of the illustrado class, like great propagandists Jose Rizal, Graciano Lopez Jaena and Marcelo H. del Pilar were educated. Even the plebian Andres Bonifacio, founder of the Katipunan, was inspired by the Victor Hugo, a passionate supporter of republicanism.

The preambles of the 1973 and 1987 Philippine constitutions, started with the phrase “We. The sovereign Filipino people…”; the 1935 Commonwealth Constitution started with “The Filipino people…” These are viewed as expressions of Filipino sovereignty.

Furthermore, in all the three constitutions, the provision “Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them” has been placed on top of the declaration of policies.

To understand the dynamics of our modern democracy, it may help to revisit and/or understand the conceptual framework of republicanism — the social contract theory. The social contract theory opposed the divine rights of monarchs to rule.

Thomas Hobbes in the Leviathan (1651) wrote that left alone, the people are in constant conflict – “state of war.” Order can only be achieved if the people enter into a social contract to give their liberty into the hands of a sovereign. And the sovereign exercises these powers through the government which is mandated to uphold the right to life.

John Locke (Two treatises of government,1660) went on to say that liberties include the right to life and property which are part natural law or rights derived from nature and not dictates of society. Locke argued that government is accountable to the people. And if government fails to uphold the people’s rights, it can be replaced.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Du contrat social, 1762) wrote about the relationship of the people and government, with the people having civil obligations and the need for government to secure consent from the governed (people).

The strength of our republican state therefore rests primarily on how the people collectively promote their interests and aspiration and how the government satisfy their collective interests and aspirations.

In modern democracies, this “social contract” is sort of renewed through fair and periodic elections. Elected officials are bestowed the authority to seek consent of the people to rule and in turn is obligated to satisfy their interests and aspirations.

Conflict theorists like Karl Marx and Freidrick Engels acknowledge that collective expression of the people’s interests and aspirations is complex as society is divided into classes – the minority bourgeoisie who dominate government and the majority proletariat or workers – the governed.

They argue that people need to organize themselves to have their interests and aspiration in the agenda of governance.

Lacking this, Engels said, the people deserve the government they elect.

This to me is cause of the so-called democracy fatigue. After years of experiment with democracy, the people’s collective interest and aspirations have been ambushed, failed, bamboozled.

The Filipino elite, mostly coming from the Southern Tagalog-Central Luzon clique of hacienderos, dominate our cacique democracy. While we do have laws that push reforms like the laws on agrarian reform, our legal systems for example is so skewed, the ruling elite plays around it and win in the end.

So bad is the state of our law and order that if there is one thing that is predictable: it’s the rich going scot-free even if they commit high crimes. And if they don’t, they either roll with the punches waiting for the next set of rulers and get freed, like Napoles, or sit it out in jails like the Ampatuans while the remaining members of their clan reclaim political foothold and protect their wealth and then bargain with the next rulers.

This seems to be the case of the Parojinogs of Ozamis. Known for having roots in the Kuratong Baleleng and the loud chatter all around about their links to illegal drugs and that notorious “hearing-hearing” from Ozamis – illegal gambling, they were thought as untouchables until government mustered enough will to throw the full force of the law.

While it is understandable why the botched raid that resulted in the killing of their patriarch and 15 others, and the arrest of daughter – heir apparent drew little or no public sentiment. Government need to come clean on this issue to boost further the credibility of this administration’s relentless drive against crime. The Internal Affairs Service of the PNP and the Commission on Human Rights should be allowed to independently do their work.

While we clap our hands in appreciation of government’s relentless war against drugs and the enemies of the state, shortcuts could further weaken our already weak system and negate whatever democratic gains we have. It would not hurt our authorities to stick to the rule of law.

Apologies for belaboring my point.

Righting a wrong with another wrong is simply not right. Otherwise, we go on a violent dive to authoritarianism. And that is no joke.