President Barack Obama used a boxing metaphor to describe the Philippines’ stature on the world stage. We may not be the largest (read: most influential) country but we do pull more than our fair share.
I suppose it is understated how our diplomats are among the best in the world. Not only do we need to foster ties with countries that host our migrant laborers, but we are also instrumental as neutral third parties in dealing with North Korea and Burma. I am not surprised that there is a disconnect between PGMA’s image at home and abroad; that our presidents have been more popular on the international stage is a historical constant. In addition, all politics is local. Obama remains incredibly popular abroad too, while his poll numbers have settled to their normal levels as of late (now only 52% approve of his job performance).
In an upcoming piece for Planet Philippines, I talked about Obama’s political calculations involved in PGMA’s visit. There isn’t much. He is simply laying the ground work for his work in Southeast Asia. I hypothesized that the issue of regional security and geopolitical partnership will be at the forefront, with hardly any mention of democracy or human rights except for that in Burma. Furthermore, Obama will disappoint all those hoping for him to scold GMA. Not only is that not his style, neither is it his ideology nor place to do so. I was right.
More calculations were done on the part of PGMA, but if she was expecting to receive effusive praise for her administration’s work then she may have been disappointed. Credit was given to her work in pushing for the peace process in Mindanao, an issue that though important, does not play as politically large as it did before. This visit was definitely not a validation of her SONA.
And just like in the SONA, I paid more attention to her demeanor and posture. She didn’t look incredibly comfortable there. Or maybe she’s just starstruck?
In my last piece on Gov. Ed Panlilio, I slightly hinted at what I think will be a major challenge of his candidacy — that despite our country being 83% Catholic, not many may be willing to support him.
This is not ironic because I expect the Catholics to flock to him. Far from it. Elections are a political exercise and Catholics in this country are not known for block voting. There is almost a universal disdain for homilies that espouse a candidate or strip down others. Many vote for a candidate other than who their parish priest prefers, and they do so not so much to protest but to take part in the rational exercise of voting for the candidate they would want to occupy public office.
The most common reservation about Gov. Panlilio’s prospective candidacy is the issue about the separation of Church and State. In a piece on this very topic, Fr. Joaquin Bernas of the Ateneo Law School chimes in,
It should be remembered, however, that the “non-establishment clause” of the Constitution, like the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, is a command addressed to the State. Thus only the State can violate it. As far as the churches are concerned, they can be beneficiaries of the State’s violation of the non-establishment clause but they cannot be the violators. Thus when politicians decry a violation by the Church and churchmen of the Church and State separation principle, what they are really doing is violating not only free exercise but also freedom of speech and expression.
The key provision on free exercise is found, like the provision on non-establishment, in Article III, Sec. 5. “No law shall be made . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Not content with that, Sec. 5 adds two other clauses: “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”
A violation of the free exercise clause by the State can come in the form of either prohibition or compulsion.
Therefore, Gov. Panlilio does not violate the separation of Church and State principle in running for public office. He may do so however if he utilizes the machinery of the State to favor one religion or to curtail the rights of others once he is in public office.
But there is a more urgent question now — Can he run? Fr. Bernas continues,
For me, the simplest among the questions is whether a member of the clergy, particularly one who runs a parish or a diocese, should run for public office. Constitutionally, the prevailing view is that there is no constitutional obstacle for a cleric running for office. As to the obstacle arising from Canon Law prescription, it is not insurmountable. What remains, therefore, is a question of prudence or propriety. My view on this is that combining public office and religious ministry can strain Church-State relations and community unity. I would therefore follow the principle that one must choose between being fully a church minister or a public official. Combining the two can be both religiously and politically unhealthy. (emphasis mine)
Hence the demand for him to leave the priesthood.
I agree that it makes the most sense for him to leave the priesthood before the campaign begins. While he has expressed that he would like to return to the ministry in the event he loses, I don’t think he has that much of a choice. There will be a lot of uneasiness in voting for him precisely because of the question of propriety that Fr. Bernas raises. But let’s say he does file for dispensation. Will that be enough?
Earlier, some colleagues and I had a light discussion about the upcoming presidential slate. I expressed my curiosity about Panlilio’s campaign. One colleague, clearly a conservative Catholic, objected to the idea of him running. “He is an ordained priest,” she said. She found it improper for someone to turn his back on his vocation, and the fact that he’s willing to do so raises a question of integrity for her.
I imagine that this will be the case for many, particularly the conservatives. I see where they’re coming from.
Yet I would like to suggest that a vocation need not be a singular commitment. It can change and evolve. Gov. Panlilio has insisted that the ministry is his first love and that he wants nothing else right now than to say mass once again. But he is compelled to run. He has been pushed by his peers, and now finds it in himself that he can do so much more for the country by being more.
I agree that there are others as capable and even more capable than Panlilio. I also agree that he can serve this country in other ways. However, we cannot deny the fact that we are called in different ways, and that we respond to it to the best of our abilities. The lives of a priest and a public official are not so different after all. They’re both about service. They should be.
The governor very well knows the cost of leaving the priesthood. Once dispensed, he can only return by order of the Pope. It will not be easy. It will take long. Only he knows what he will have to sacrifice, only he knows what there is to gain.
What will make me feel uneasy however, is if he feels that he can win them all — then that wouldn’t distinguish him from every other politician. For despite everything I have said about him so far, I have yet to unequivocally declare my support for him. I fall among those who question the propriety of it all. Granted, he has the qualities I look for. Though I have yet to fully gauge his intelligence, I am willing to listen. It will still be me who casts that vote though. I can’t compel him to do anything I would, but I express my agreement or disagreement with a ballot.
I find absolutely nothing wrong with him feeling that God has called him to run. He is a priest. He understands the world through the language of vocation, so to hear him justify his choice as yet another vocation is to be expected of him. (Unlike say, an economist, who alludes to divine providence — that comes across as disingenuous.) However, Panlilio will have to learn the language of politics too. (So it may not help to allude to God all the time in the long run.) Being president of the Philippines is not some Christ-like ministry in Jerusalem.
It is Babylon. And with hubris, the tower comes crashing down.
“On June 30, 1992, the traditional ceremony of political succession will unfold at the Luneta. The last time it was done that way was in 1965. I shall be there with you to proudly witness the event.” – Cory Aquino, SONA 1991
“I will be working and governing — you will all feel and hear and see me working and governing as your president — until I turn over the presidency to the 13th president of the republic at high noon on 30 June 1998.” – Fidel Ramos, SONA 1997
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo just delivered her final State of the Nation Address. It was a badly written speech. I found it very incoherent and anti-climatic. It felt like it could have ended in three different points and started in two others.
Essentially, it’s a big F-bomb to her critics. She knows that her administration will not be remembered fondly — hence the repetitive assertion that she brought progress at the expense of popularity — and did her best to expound on exactly what she did and why she did them. She’s justifying all her political failings with the economic progress she has made. Ever the professor, she came with all the numbers and figures she needed. Ever the politician, she came with the human props she helped emancipate. But were they enough?
That was her last SONA. It wasn’t really about setting an agenda for congress. More than anything, it was her opportunity to tell us how she wants to be remembered. This was her chance to dictate her legacy.
So how will she be remembered?
Watching her, I could not help but notice how agitated she seemed. She was rushing her speech and even shouting at times. Her swipes at her opponents were very pointed. I think GMA will be remembered as a very unpopular, bitter president. She has been divisive despite all the work she has done, her only genuine appeal came when she said that her long working hours cannot be denied (which we can’t).
And yet, the ultimate tragedy is that when all her hard work pays off, she will not be remembered for them. She knows this. Her posture and demeanor in the speech showed it. She is an economist. Her policies, if ever all she said were true, will materialize in the long-term when the people have long forgotten her.
This was her chance to say, “In 10 years, remember the work we have done now.”
She blew it. She didn’t say it. Maybe she did, so that’s worse — we weren’t listening. She no longer got us to listen. She gave up on us the moment she gave up on her critics, because what she got wrong was that we all care for our country too. Her critics were those who wanted nothing but for her to succeed and leave the presidency with a lasting legacy.
P.S.
From Bonifacio at Balintawak to Cory Aquino at EDSA and up to today, we have struggled to bring power to the people, and this country to the eminence it deserves. – PGMA, SONA 2009
Another point that left a foul taste in my mouth was when she alluded to Bonifacio and Aquino, and implied that her administration brought power to the people too.
Using history is a powerful rhetorical device that can easily sweep away the casual listener. But this just didn’t work. One will have to justify historical metaphors. Failure to do so would be as ingenious of alluding to God or some other power as justification for one’s actions.
The San Diego Comic Con is this weekend. I tip my hat to all creators and us fans who have made comic books my favorite entertainment medium. This is this year’s edition of Why I Love Comics.
We are all geeks at something. It’s comics for me. It is the one thing I never outgrew, and while I plan to do so every year, I just can’t. They’re so much fun. I’m a big fan of serialized storytelling — LOST being the ultimate example. I like unraveling complicated plots and seeing how characters transform, evolve, and eventually redeem themselves. I also love the superhero concept. Superman: The Movie was the first film I ever saw. It taught me that each of us has an innate power that is both freed and bound by our humanity. It’s really what we do with what we’ve got that matters.
But I didn’t care about any of that when I was 10 years old. And every time I open the page of a new comic these days, Continue reading →
There is a lot we don’t know about Ed Panlilio. He may be more presidentiable than you think.
Yesterday, I worked on an article on Pampanga Gov. Ed Panlilio for Planet Philippines. When he finally declared his intention to run last July 18, he tempered his announcement by acknowledging the fact that he needs to know if his candidacy is viable or not. Will it work? Can he win? Those were the questions I answered in my piece.
I addressed his track record. I said that while he has achieved as an executive in Pampanga, he may not be ready for the legislative battles that come with being president. A lack of machinery is to blame, though I considered the alternative social movements that Kaya Natin! and Kilos Na! promise. Lastly I addressed an irony — that though 83% of the country is Roman Catholic, not many may be willing to support him. I appreciate that he advocates ecumenical work, yet his position on social issues are currently vague and his opponents will surely jump on that.
Nonetheless, he can promise a new brand of politics that no other candidate can. The presidency is not just about experience and expertise but about courage and integrity as well; the latter two he has in abundance. Will this be enough to win the election? My answer to that I reserve for the piece that gets published in mid-August.
Today I’d like to talk about my impressions of him.
I didn’t think of him highly before writing my piece. His showings in the ANC leadership forums did not impress me. He came off as sincere but not incredibly intelligent. Put alongside the likes of Escudero, Gordon, Legarda and Roxas, his newness shows. He would often retreat to his experiences in Pampanga or reduce issues to matters of morality. Panlilio needs a communications officer to rebrand him into a competitive intelligent candidate.
Because so far, it is my opinion that the media does him a disservice. Today’s headline in GMA News — “God is calling me to run for president” — comes across less as nobility and more as lunacy. Through further research I discover that he is a man of deep substance and principle. He is more intelligent than the ANC forums have revealed. And I think, based on his qualities alone, he can be a terrific President of the Philippines.
There is a really revealing interview of him last August 30, 2008 aired in the low-profile Q TV channel. It was in Bro. Eddie Villanueva’s show, Diyos at Bayan. Villanueva is firmly in the Panlilio camp, and yet the Pampanga governor did not indulge his host. Usually interviews such as these become flatterfests where the interviewee just ends up saying, “Yes, I am awesome, right?” But here Panlilio remains low key. His tone throughout was a frank, “I’m just doing my job.” That for me is very telling.
The entire interview is on YouTube. First part (of five) below.
He likened his first year of office to steering a large ship. It had its direction and momentum, yet was being buffeted by winds and waves — that would be the excessive politicking that has gotten in the way of the job they have to do.
He had three weapons to survive the political attacks. First is faith in his supporters, but not the kind where they watched his back, but reminded him that politics is bigger than himself. It’s not about him. Second, he had a firm belief that he was doing the right thing. There will be critics, but that didn’t distract him from the righteous and principled path he is on. And thirdly, faith in Christ, the source of truth. There is no more powerful weapon in politics than the truth, and his faith in Christ inspired him to carry on when things got tough.
He is known for raising provincial revenue from quarrying by 700%. During his first year, it grew from a P30 million a year industry to P234 million. What got in the way were the middlemen. Collections were being done in checkpoints, not in the Tresurer’s office. He ended that. But Panlilio downplays his success saying that it was all a matter of implementing laws that were already there. That simple.
He is frank, collegial, and inclusive. He addressed suppliers and bidders that the provincial government will not receive any commission. Furthermore, he convened the fourteen different provincial councils to planning sessions where they identified key projects and published a program of works for each project. Then he enjoined the local citizenry to monitor the progress. For the first time in 12 years, some of the farthest barangays were finally receiving the attention they needed.
Controversy hounded him as his fight against corruption intensified. He filed corruption charges against Rodolfo “Bong” Pineda, an alleged jueteng lord. Panlilio explains this decision as putting a face on corruption and showing everyone how serious he is. This is pure Machiavelli at its finest. (And a true Machiavellian is not an evil man, but one of the highest virtue.)
Here is an example of his policy wisdom: He speaks of a “Bibingka approach” in the fight against jueteng — init sa baba, init sa taas. He recognizes that any effort from the top (ie. filing charges against alleged lords) must be supplemented by real solutions from below. Why do people resort to jueteng? Thus, livelihood programs and education became crucial factors in his crusade. To wean people away from jueteng, they needed an alternative way of life.
With regard to his work in Kaya Natin! and meeting other leaders such as Grace Padaca and Jesse Robredo, he acknowledges that while hope is elusive, it is also already here. There are “islands of hope” throughout the country and it is his wish that together they become an “archipelago of hope”.
These last two points are what won me over.
How important is God-centeredness in politics? Very. Because for Panlilio, politics is not dirty. It is beautiful and noble, because God created it through man. I am as secular as they come so some readers may be surprised at how I point this out. But what I see is a man motivated by his faith to make a real difference in how politics is done. We all have our own motivations, and I welcome anyone with the courage and fortitude to stand up and say, “The way we do things now is simply not as good as it gets.”
And lastly, he was asked what his principles on good governance are. First, that he leads by example. Second, that he lives simply. And third, that there must be transparency and accountability above all. Moreover, he believes that true power comes from the people. He may not have a powerful machinery or inexhaustible coffers, but he believes that if given the right choice, people will support a candidate they believe in. He prefers that people spend so that candidates don’t, after all it is they who will benefit from good governance.
So will I be voting for him?
Not so fast. I am drawn to his character and his qualities, but I am still waiting to hear a platform. He has to satisfy my intellectual categories too, and that will require learning what his stance on the Reproductive Health Act is, his view on our OFW policies, his agenda on economic and political reform, and so on.
In addition, his political machinery worries me not so much for the campaign, but for what will happen after. Where will his allies in the House and Senate come from? Unless he can field a good enough slate or secure their patronage without resorting to patronage politics (figure that), I am not too confident about his agenda. He is a strong executive at the local level, but the presidency really is a different beast.
I am inclined to support him, but he is not my ideal candidate yet. Right now he is a mirror to which people project their hopes and aspirations. They see in him what they want to see, but I want to see him for what he really stands for. Nonetheless, I know enough to want to learn more and I am convinced that there is much about Ed Panlilio that we may not really know.
I spent the better part of the afternoon remapping SS2. I already figured how to divide the quarters and class sessions last June, and then these suspensions happened. I am glad to report things will look really good when we get back.
I’ll be releasing the full plan as the 27th nears. For now, here is what to expect:
For the first semester, we will be zooming into to the main three Asian civilizations — Indian, Chinese, and Islamic.
I have five documentaries and three PowerPoints planned.
The end point of the first semester is a conference which students will be organizing. This conference will run for an entire week and will be from October 12 to 16, the week right after the 1st Semester exams.
Instead of two long tests of 50 points each, there will be three long quizzes of 25 to 30 points each. These quizzes are scheduled right after a lecture on one civilization. I decided to go with this since there will be a lot of content in this semester, and more quizzes will lessen the amount of what a student will have to study for one test. There are also more opportunities to make up.
We will be having the first round of the SS2 Quiz Tournament this semester. Our first, and only quiz so far, will be used to determine the handicap.
In 
