Expect big changes after that SONA

As may be expected in a speech to Congress, President Duterte last Monday asked it to enact a
number of measures to help the administration carry on its reform program in the next three
years.

Among these measures were the creation of new departments of the government, notably a
Department of Disaster Resilience, a Department of Water Resources, and a Department of
Overseas Filipino Workers. The first two seek to address the problems of storms and floods
alternating with periods of drought. The third seeks to assume better care of our overseas Filipino
workers, now a major source of our national income.

The President asked for action on a number of bills that provide for fiscal reforms, led by TRAIN
2, also called TRABAHO Bill, lowering the corporate income tax while revising the system of
taxes and other government charges on foreign firms invited to locate in our economic zones.

He called for better pay for the country’s teachers and nurses and other government workers, part
of an overall program to improve government services to the people. There will be right-sizing in
the reorganization of government agencies which have grown too big and too unwieldy. He
called on all government agencies and local governments to simplify their procedures for permits
and other documents.

He called for the reinstatement of the death penalty for heinous crimes related to drugs and
plunder. The drug problem, he said, has proved to be difficult to eradicate. Drugs funded the
five-month Marawi siege, he said, and the drug problem continues to plague many communities
all over the country to this day.

But the President reserved his most ardent appeal to Congress and to the nation at large when he
spoke of corruption which, he said, is at the root of the continuing drug problem, is in every facet
of government operation, and is in the very lives of the people.

“I have seen the face of the enemy,” he said, “and the enemy is us. We are our own tormentors
and our own demons. We find corruption everywhere. It’s a national embarrassment. It’s a
national shame.”

He said he had fired or caused to resign over a hundred officials and other appointees in
government. “I will push harder in the pursuit of programs that we have started but always
within the parameters of the law.”

We expect this 18th Congress to do better than the last one which got so embroiled in disputes
between congressmen and senators over “pork barrel” in public works projects that it passed the
National Budget for 2019 three months later than it should have, with ill consequences for the
entire program of government.

We may recall that the Senate finally submitted the bill to the President but with a note saying it
believed P75 billion in various public works projects were “pork barrel” of certain congressmen.
Without any further discussion and without any further comment, the President simply vetoed
the P75 billion, then signed the bill into law.

After that State of the Nation Address (SONA), in which the President strongly denounced
corruption, not only in government but also in a society that tolerates it, we look forward to big
changes in government operations. We can also expect a more expeditious action in Congress
this year on various urgent bills and, most important, on the national budget for 2020.
Duterte said ‘sea bargain’ would violate Constitution
Is President Rody Duterte’s fishing agreement with Xi Jinping a virtual successful invasion by
China without a shot fired? Is it not a violation of our Constitution that orders our President and
military to defend what’s ours?

Former foreign secretary Albert del Rosario asked those amidst public dismay. The Duterte-Xi
verbal deal is seen as lopsided against Filipinos. China is to let us fish in our Scarborough
Shoal, 150 sq. km, while it trawls our Reed Bank, 8,866 sq. km, and the rest of our EEZ, larger
than our 330,000-sq.-km land territory. The “Environment Crisis” forum critiqued the deal last
July 12, the third anniversary of Manila’s arbitral victory against Beijing’s sea incursions. Duterte
has shelved that UN court award, against the wish of 93 percent of Filipinos.

Of the second question, on constitutionality, Duterte gave the answer before. Del Rosario
quoted transcripts of the President’s press briefing on departing for Brunei and China, Oct. 16,
2016:

“Duterte: Many are wondering how I would deal with China on the matter of the China Sea or
West Philippine Sea. We will stick towards our claim. We do not bargain anything though. We
continue to insist that it’s ours, and that the Tribunal, the international decision will be taken up,
but there will be no hard impositions. We will talk and we will maybe paraphrase everything in
the judgment and set the limits of our territories, the [exclusive] economic zones. It will be – no
bargaining there. It is ours and many of you are just wanting to ask the question. That is it. No
bargaining of our territories, whether within the [12] or to the 200, it will remain a special concern
and I will be very careful not to bargain anything, for after all I cannot give what is not mine and
which I am not empowered to do by any stretch of imagination.

“Question from Mr. Ian Cruz, GMA-7: Sir, according to Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice
Antonio Carpio, if you concede the sovereign claims over Scarborough Shoal, you could be
impeached. What’s your reaction, sir?

“Duterte: He is correct. I would be impeached; it’s an impeachable offense. I do not fight with
that statement. It’s all correct, it’s all legal and so I agree with him. I said we cannot barter which
is not ours, it belongs to the Filipino people. I cannot be the sole authorized agent for that is not
allowed under the Constitution. Tama siya.”

“Interesting,” del Rosario said of Duterte’s words then. “That position of the President is what
the people want, not only in Scarborough but also in our EEZ, including West Philippine Sea
(WPS). It is consistent with the Constitution and puts the interest of the Filipino people first. To
paraphrase the President, he cannot be ‘sole authorized agent’ to share with the Chinese our
EEZ that belongs exclusively to the Filipino people. In fact, the President and the military are
constitutionally mandated to secure the integrity of our national territory which includes our
EEZ.”

Today Malacañang insists the Duterte-Xi fishing deal is legal. So del Rosario asked more
questions in his speech. Excerpts:

“Is the agreement, whether verbal or written, now Philippine policy? To what extent will it
diminish or nullify our arbitral victory? To what extent will it embolden Chinese militia vessels to
further bully our poor fishermen; will they be continually persecuted and prevented from fishing
in our sea? Can we be assured that our lawful rights to oil and gas within our EEZ are being
protected? With China’s artificial-island building, the massive destruction of the marine
environment and now this fishing deal, how much faster will it take to exhaust fish resources?
When will we stop giving our northern neighbor primacy over that of our own people? When will
Filipinos be first and not last in our own country? Filipinos deserve answers.

“Government must listen to its people. Ninety-three percent of Filipinos, according to a recent
Social Weather Station survey, think it is important to regain control of artificial islands built by
China in the WPS. Similarly, 92 percent think it is right to strengthen Philippine military
capability, especially the Navy. And 83 percent support bringing these issues to the UN,
ASEAN, or other international organizations.

“Given the Administration’s decision to shelve the Award, former Ombudswoman Conchita
Carpio-Morales and I took the initiative. We filed a communication with the International Criminal
Court on March 15, 2019 for wrongful acts of Chinese officials against not only Filipinos but also
our neighbors in the SCS. This ICC communication is a means of enforcing the Award. It aims
to exact accountability for actions committed by Chinese President Xi and others, already found
unlawful by the Award.

“Given the unfortunate shelving of the Award, it falls on us ordinary Filipinos to find creative,
viable means to enforce it. We must defend and preserve our national patrimony – not only for
ourselves but for our children and those yet unborn.

“To deep dismay of our people, our government is allowing China to deprive our citizens of what
is ours. We are succumbing to threats of force. Surprising as it may sound, according to Prof.
Amitav Acharya of American University, war is not even a good option for China. Its economy
heavily relies on global trade, including fuel supply that needs open shipping lanes such as
Malacca Strait and Indian Ocean dominated by US naval power.

“With the recent clearer security guarantee by the US, it may not be necessary therefore to
shrink to China’s threat of war.”
DEATH
In last Monday’s SONA, President Rodrigo Duterte reiterated his wish for the death penalty to be
restored. Considering the prevailing political alignments, it is likely he gets his wish in this 18th Congress.

Restoring the death penalty, especially for major drug dealers, is popular. It is symbolic of government’s
determination to crush the drug problem. It appeals to the public’s disposition for instant solutions to
complex problems.

In a way, as many law enforcers suspect, the death penalty could help dissuade drug dealers. Judicial
killings are stark events. They instill fear of finality in the enforcement of the law.

Some lawmakers, like Manny Pacquiao, want the death penalty enforced in spectacular fashion. They are
calling for public executions, preferably by firing squad. That should magnify the deterrent effect of capital
punishment.

If we grant them that, the death penalty crosses from the merely punitive into the zone of public
entertainment. It will overshadow cockfighting and degrade our sensibility back to the era of blood sports
where gladiators fighting to death provided diversion for kings and subjects alike.

Terminating life, even as it is done by judicial mandate, becomes pornography. It is conducted to pleasure
our worst instincts.

Then there is the abstracted economistic justification for putting criminals to death.

Sentencing an offender to life in prison is like putting him on a pension. For the rest of his natural life, his
board and lodging will be at public expense. That adds to the budget deficit and strikes some as an
injustice in itself.
Those who calculate the merits of imposing the death penalty in strictly economistic terms see it as a
vastly cheaper alternative. Kill the criminal now instead of maintaining him jail for years.

That is a numbing argument. It is easily extendable to the one that animates extrajudicial executioners:
kill of the bad guys as soon as possible and avoid the expense of long trials as well as the cost of further
congesting our jails.

The Maoist Khmer Rouge, when they ruled by genocide over Cambodia, worked out the same argument
in their minds. The most feasible way to alleviate food shortages is to kill the hungry. There will be lesser
mouths to feed.

That makes sense only in a momentary historical vacuum where all sense of civility evaporated. It made
such sense in that moral and civilizational vacuum that the Khmer Rouge chose to execute people in the
most economical way: by a hammer blow to the back of the head. That way no additional expense is
incurred in ridding society of its undesirables.

The amoral rule of the Khmer Rouge was brief but horrific. About a quarter of Khmers were brutally
exterminated in summary manner. The genocide was mindless as it was efficient. For that brief moment,
Khmers lost touch with their long civilizational roots.

Marxism has a way of abstracting historical (and, hence, political) necessities from the humanism
civilization has cultivated. This is why it was so easy for NPA guerrillas to torture and then murder those
four policemen they captured last week and determined to be oppressing the people.

Social Science

Against all the salacious arguments in favor of restoring the death penalty enumerated above, there is
only one non-moralizing argument against it: social science has determined that the certainty of being
caught and not severity of punishment that effectively deters crime.

The findings of social scientists are dull and unromantic as can be. These findings tell us that even if we
indulge in an orgy of public executions, these will barely dent the awesome drug problem we confront.

True, the executions will bring forth some spectacular public entertainment. But that is about the only
outcome it will bring. The executions will satisfy our bloodlust but hardly contain the problem. They will
make all of us baser but not safer.

The solutions to the drug problem patently lack drama and instantaneous results. The involve capacity-
building among our security forces, patient but relentless police work, untiring efforts in educating the
potential victims of this menace and science-based rehabilitation of those afflicted with the drug problem.

No one should be claiming the drug menace could be licked in six months. It is a complex phenomenon,
including institutional failure and the weaknesses of our politics, international commerce and multinational
syndicates.

True, the drug menace threatens to transform our nation into a narco-state with large volumes of illicit
cash influencing political outcomes. It is an urgent, existential threat. The drug war needs to be waged,
even if it incurs collateral damage some might find intolerable.

But given what social science now knows, restoring the death penalty will at best bring only marginal help
in curbing the drug menace. Social science is the reason why most of the advanced countries stepped
back from imposing the death penalty. Its contribution curbing the problem is far outweighed by the
injustice the penalty might bring, such as in the case of mistrials.

Social science, however, is unlikely to impress our legislators. Collectively, our politicians have a
propensity for enacting what might seem to be heroic (albeit simplistic) solutions to complex social
problems. Historically, our legislation has tended towards increasing penalties rather than improving the
efficiency of enforcement. The former produces headlines; the latter goes unnoticed.

Restoring the death penalty will create the semblance of decisiveness. It is a dramatic response. It will
produce headlines ahead of our short electoral cycles. And, very likely, the first ones to be put to death
are guilty as hell.

For all these, expect enactment of the death penalty.

Death penalty, namumuro na
SA wakas ang paulit-ulit kong sinusulat na pagbabalik ng death penalty sa bansa
ay abot kamay na. Kamakailan lang, ginahasa ang isang taong gulang na batang
lalaki at hindi pa nagdaan ang isang linggo walong taong gulang na batang babae
naman ang biktima ulit ng rape, hindi na nakuntento ang suspect binugbog at
isinilid sa sako ang kaawa-awang bata. Mabuti na lang at nabuhay ito at naituro
ang suspect na lumapastangan sa kanya.

Ang mga ganitong klase ng insedente ay makapagpursige sana sa mga

mambabatas na maipasa na ang parusang bitay. Binuro naman na ito ng mga
senador. Bukod pa sa mga pangyayaring ganyan unli pa rin ang pasok ng droga sa
bansa at milyong pisong halaga pa rin ang nasasabat ng mga otoridad. Sinabi ko
na noon pa na death penalty lamang ang makapagpapahinto ng mga krimen at
droga. Isama pa riyan ang plunder. Aba, siguradong mahaba-haba na ang pila ng
mga bibitayin kapag ito ay pumasa.

Alam ng lahat na marami pa ring kumukontra kaya inaamag na ito sa senado pero
ngayong pumasok na ang mga bata ni President Digong. siguro naman dire-
diretso na yan na magiging batas. Isang halimbawa na lang ang nangyari noon sa
actress na si Maggie dela Riva. Ginahasa ng mga kilalang tao sa lipunan. Pero
kinalaunan, nakamtan ni Dela Riva ang hustisya dahil bitay ang hatol sa mga
suspect. Ganyan din sa ngayon kapag ang kaanak ay biktima ng kahit anong
krimen gustong iparusa ay bitay. Dahil yan lang ang alam nilang makakamit na
hustisya.

Bitayin na lang, makakatipid pa ang gobyerno sa pagkain at makakaluwag pa sa

mga selda. Tulad ng nakasulat sa Bibliya, “An eye for an eye…” iyan ang karapat-
dapat.
Babala sa mga mambabastos
NOONG nakaraang Abril 17, 2019 pa pinirmahan ni President Duterte ang
Republic Act No. 11313 (Safe Spaces Act) at tinatawag ding Anti-Bastos Law pero
noon lamang Lunes ito inihayag sa publiko. Maraming kababaihan ang pumuri sa
batas sapagkat mapuprotektahan na sila. Hindi na sila basta-basta masisipulan
sapagkat mananagot sa batas ang sinumang gagawa niyon.

Sa ilalim ng batas, mahigpit nang ipinagbabawal ang sexually offensive acts sa

kababaihan kahit saang lugar na publiko, sa kalsada, sa lugar ng trabaho,
sasakyan, schools, recreational areas, bars o maski sa online.

Bawal pagsalitaan na may kabastusan o kalaswaan, sipulan, sundan, paglabasan

ng ari o gawaan ng sexual advances ang kababaihan. Ipagbigay-alam agad sa
malapit na police station o barangay ang pambabastos para makapagsampa ng
reklamo.

Nire-require naman ang mga restaurant, bars at mga sinehan na maglagay ng

malinaw na warning signs sa magiging violators. Dapat ding magkaroon ng hotline
number para madaling maireport ang violators. Kailangan din na may officer na
kukuha ng complaint at dadakip sa sinumang perpetrators.

Napapanahon ang batas na ito sapagkat karaniwan ng maraming babae ang

nababastos habang naglalakad sa kalye. May mga babaing bibili lamang ng suka at
toyo sa tindahan sa kanto ay nakakaranas ng pambabastos sa mga lalaking
tambay.

May mga babaing sinisipulan at pinariringgan ng mga bastos na pananalita na

para bang “pokpok” ang kanilang nakita. Mayroon pang kung anu-ano ang
ginagawa para mapansin ng babae. Ang iba, tila manyak nang ipakikita ang ari sa
babaing naglalakad o kahit sa nakasakay sa pampasaherong sasakyan.

Kapaki-pakinabang ang batas na ito at sana, maipatupad nang maayos. Siguruhin

lamang na mayroong mapagsusumbungan karaka-raka ang mga kababaihan para
madaling maaresto ang sinumang gagawa ng kabastusan o kahalayan. Kung
walang mag-aasikaso sa complainant, balewala ang batas na ito. Dapat siguruhing
mayroong malalapitan ang mabibiktima ng mga bastos anumang oras. Hindi dapat
masayang ang batas na ito na nagpuprotekta sa mga kababaihan.