The Last Stand

It is the mandate of the State to promote the equal distribution of wealth among the Filipino people. It is, likewise, the policy of the government to give land to the landless and free the poor and the oppressed farmers from the bonds of their unyielding landlords to the effect that every Filipino farmer may enjoy the fruits of their labor. A farmer who tills the land for the rest of his life and leaves no property to his children but the fact of hard labor is a high form of social injustice. It is an injustice that strikes at the heart of our ideals and aspirations, a prolific sickness that would kill a man’s dream of pursuing happiness.

While it is true that no men are created equal in matters of material wealth and possession, the State must protect the interest of the unheard workforce, especially the farmers, by granting them what is due, in which case the gift would be the transfer of lands into their industrious hands. There is no denial that those who toil the land suffers severe physical stress, emotional trauma, psychological anxiety and, above all, moral pain because the blood and sweat they endure to cultivate the lot and harvest its fruits will only be subject to the disposal of the greedy rich. The latter’s objective is to accumulate wealth and brandish among his colleagues the digits under his account, while that of the former’s sole goal is to feed his hungry children and provide a measly platter of food before his family.

Thus, when an unimaginable unjust enrichment occurs due to this evil scheme, it is the court, who, as the last bastion of justice and equity, hails that the deprived shall receive that which he is entitled, by law and by social fairness. The decision of the Supreme Court, in ordering the distribution of lands owned and controlled by the Hacienda Luisita Incorporated to the farmers, is a manifestation of final justice which has long been overdue. 

The Elusive Flight

No less than the fundamental law of the land provides that a person shall have the free right to travel, unimpaired by any state regulation, save only in cases when the national security, public safety, or public health is imperilled. The state, then, has the exclusive authority to restrict one from the enjoyment of his free movement, particularly when his act of travel would lead to endanger the general interest of the public in matters of security and health. Thus, it can be gleaned that the right to travel is a superior right of an individual than that of the power of the state to prohibit such because it is subject to the conditions imposed by the Constitution.

The Former President’s issue of seeking medical attendance outside the Philippines has now become a classic clash between the obligation of the State to prosecute those who must face the portals of a courtroom and an individual’s right to travel for purposes of treatment. The denial of the President to grant the travel abroad is premised on the ground that FPGMA’s condition is non-life threatening. In addition, the government is apprehensive on the risk that the former president might take flight from the charges filed against her in the courts of law. It can be remembered that flight is an admission of guilt.

It is on this basis that the government impaired the right of President Arroyo to travel. One need not have the expertise of analysis and logic to understand that the impairment of the government of her right to travel was not anchored on national security, public safety, or public health. To grant her the opportunity of cure outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines will not mean the introduction of sedition, rebellion or insurrection, or the entrance of any contagious diseases into the land of the pearl of the orient. 

The Rebels' Haven

                          Laws are promulgated in order to regulate the affairs of men, to protect every individual from any injury, and, among others, to promote the general interest of the public. In other words, its concept is to maintain order and secure to every living citizens the enjoyment of their basic rights, privileges, and, as well as their fundamental freedoms. Most of the law created by the law-making body defines a crime, treats of its nature and provides for punishment. One of the law’s basic characteristics is territoriality, where it is applied in the territory over which the state has sovereignty and jurisdiction.

                         In cases where a State cannot effectively carry out its obligation to enforce the law in certain parts of its territory, it strikes an unparalleled failure on the part of the government to assert its sovereignty to every composite part of its territorial jurisdiction. It must be remembered that a law distinguishes neither place nor day for its application so long as it is effected within the territorial responsibility of the concerned state, with the end in view that no one goes unpunished for a crime committed.

                         The so called “Area of Temporary Stay” enjoyed by the Muslim insurgents is a blunder to the Philippines’ territorial integrity, as the law enforcers cannot extend the arm of the law on such areas since it is controlled by the rebels. In addition, for a successful entrance over the area, coordination must be made by the government to the insurgents. Where a criminal or an offender seeks refuge in the area of temporary stay, officers of the law will cease its pursuit over the former since they will be entering a haven where a need for formal offer of entrance is indispensable.

                         Accordingly, lawless elements would be free to enjoy impunity and easily escape arrest by simply laying his foot on the rebels’ dungeon. It would be to recognize an entity its sovereignty when an area of temporary stay is allowed. A law punishes its violators; it haunts them to every inch of the territory where they choose to hide; more so, it accepts no reason for its non-application. Thus, when a law is served, justice is well in place as the paramount objective of the government to bring in peace and order, but when its application stops at the doorstep of the rebels’ house, where it only gaze the offenders swiftly eluding the force of the law, it shakes the foundation of the Republic as a sovereign nation.

The Vexing Problem of Peace

While the rest of the world watches on how the Philippines stage a peace process to end the communist insurgents and separatist rebels, the government with its vast intelligence and military resources has failed to thwart a treacherous attack by the NPA, the armed group of the Communist Party of the Philippines, against the mining companies in Surigao, last 3 October 2011. With this new armed and political turmoil, the international community casted doubt on whether it is within the capacity of the Philippine government to put a final nail in the coffin on this vexing problem.

The magnitude of such aggression paints a painful question on the ability of the Philippines to protect the multi-billion foreign investments in the country, especially in the field of mining and extraction of other natural resources. The fear to invest in this country would bring about untold consequences such that there would be increase in unemployment, loss of government revenue and lack of trust and confidence from the international community and business leaders. The peace process has long been delayed because of political and idealistic reasons and thus, the delay, with subsequent betrayal of truce, would mean that peace will never be accounted.

The Philippine government must put serious efforts to stop insurgency and provide a long term solution to achieve peace. While diplomacy is the key element to effectuate peace without the stain of blood being spilled, it would be fruitless to hope in the mighty heaven that peace would come at the window by mere agreement in a piece of paper. The need for military action to halt the insurgents’ acts of terrorism must be well in place at this very moment. We cannot have diplomacy and military at the same time, it is the highest form of absurdity in peace process. It is either diplomacy or military action, but to address the deadlock of the former, we must choose the latter.

Silenced Test Papers

All laws must conform to the might and majesty of the Constitution. Accordingly, a law must be struck down if it profoundly violates the Fundamental law of the land, regardless of how noble its intention may appear. The House of Representatives, as the elected voice of the sovereign Filipino, has expressed its concern over some schools’ policy of prohibiting students who fail to present the necessary permit in order to take major examinations. Thus, House Bill 4791 which endeavours to penalize any professor or school that shall deprive the students in taking examination was approved by the House on its second reading.

No less than the Constitution, under Article XIV Section 1 provides that “The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such decision accessible to all”. In other words, it is the mandate of the law-making body to legislate laws that seeks to secure to the Filipino people an uncompromised education for all. While private institutions air their dispassionate resistance over the HB 4791, it must be remembered that it is the power of the state to exercise reasonable supervision and regulation of all educational institutions.

An argument that the bill is built to slowly cut the life of private institutions, as tuition fees constitutes the source of their operation, does not hold any value, since only a fraction of the students fall short of carrying their obligation. It must be remembered that education is made not for the purpose of profit but for the youth, who shall build this nation into a better society. While it may be true that education is only a matter of right in elementary and secondary level and becomes a privilege in tertiary, it is still unreasonable and irrational to deprive our children with this privilege.

The Child's Excuse

       The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in promoting national development and civic welfare. Accordingly, it is the State’s obligation to protect the youth from any kind of exploitation, violence, forced labor and any other activity that has the effect of corrupting the innocence of the youth. It is, likewise, the duty of the State to install rehabilitation programs and reintegration measures of any child in conflict with the law. Thus, it led to the promulgation of Republic Act no. 9344 or otherwise known as “The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006”.

         One of the salient features of Republic Act no. 9344 provides for the minimum age of criminal liability, where it raised the age of a child exempt from criminal liability from 9 to 15 years of age. In other words, any person under 15 years of age shall be exempt from any criminal liability, regardless if he acted with discernment or not. However, a child in conflict with the law shall be committed before the DSWD to undergo an intervention program.  This is a pure example of a positivist school of thought wherein it views that a criminal is a sick man who needs reformation and cure instead of punishment.

The law’s intention of protecting and reforming the life of the youth offenders has failed to achieve its purpose, since juvenile delinquents continue to flourish. The law has now been an excuse for every juvenile delinquent to perpetuate the commission of offense in the society with the sight of impunity from arrest and prosecution. Worst, it provided an avenue for the criminal syndicates to use the innocent children in furthering their evil design in utter disregard of the child’s sense of dignity and worth. Republic Act no. 9344 must be reconsidered to attain the State’s goal of protecting the youth; otherwise, the Philippines will become a haven for young criminals.

The Protectionist State

          It is the policy of the State to develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos. The State has also put into recognition the goals of the national economy which would provide a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth. This policy has sealed the opportunity of an alien to acquire absolute ownership of alienable lands, save in cases of hereditary succession, and it, likewise, limits the capital share of foreign investments in public utilities to only 40 per centum.

             

        The ambition set forth by the Constitution in matters of national economy has long been dormant from the moment of its ratification. The people, with the hope of economic liberation and equal distribution in wealth, have found its resting place in perpetual slavery of poverty, social inequality and loss of opportunity. The economic gap between the capable few and unfortunate many has stretched its boundary with miles apart. While the State’s policy extends an arm of protection in our national economy, it failed to provide a progressive economy since public utility services are owned by a few elite.

             

           When the State’s primary public services are controlled by a limited number of capitalist, it will create a climate of an evil monopoly. The ceiling of foreign investments in public utility services to only 40 percent must be revisited. The increase of capital share would lead to a distributive share of economic chance and, eventually, the collapse of monopoly in the Philippines. Necessary change must be met in order to claim prosperity in the hands of the sovereign which the Constitution has in view to the Filipino people.