A couple of days Patricia Evangelista in her column wrote: “More than anything, the impeachment court is an attempt at accountability, to take account of men who are invincible for the sake of those who are not. The court’s power emanates not from the people, but from the court itself, from the faith of the public who live in fear and awe of gavels and robes. Once that faith is shaken, even the most formidable of justices cannot hand down decisions and expect to be believed.” Taken at face value, or in its most superficial of meanings, this statement makes sense. As does much of her column, which makes some good points. Respect is based on perception. But on a deeper level this is a ridiculous over-simplistic statement that belies the actual relationship between the Court, the Constitution, and the People. It misses an opportunity to elucidate and educate in favor of a rabble-rousing slickly reductive soundbite.

John Dunn wrote: “When we speak or think of ourselves as living a democracy, what we have in mind is something far different. It is that our state, and the government which does so much to organize our lives, draws its legitimacy from us, and that we have the reasonable chance of being able to compel each of them to continue to do so.” The Court itself holds little power other than what the Constitution and thus the People grant to it. It is not about how citizens perceive the High Court (or the power contained within the Court), but how they understand its role within a country. The Power of the Supreme Court is handed down and delineated by the Philippine Constitution, that is basic Civics 101. It is the Constitution that gives agency to these entities; it is the Constitution that the Filipino supports. Actions like impeachment are mechanisms for the People to assert their authority over constitutionally empowered individuals. In its most basic component, impeachment is the avenue where-by the People, through their elected representatives, can weigh and study the merits of an individual continuing in government service. It is not a mechanism for constitutional retribution or judicial revenge. Government service is not a right, it is a privilege, especially when it comes to some of the highest positions in the land. What we are basically evaluating is whether someone is worthy of continuing to serve the Filipino people. It is the assertion of the Filipino people’s authority over a government they themselves empower with vast responsibilities. Responsibilities that touch on every aspect of a Filipino’s daily life. We forget, but the role of a Constitution and a Bill of Rights is not only to define the role of government, but to protect a people from the potential iniquities of those who are imbued with vast powers and authority (think of the Magna Carta).

Evangelista’s statement also reflects on on-going discursive issue in the Philippines: Our preference to reduce to issues to simplistic soundbites, Us vs Them; Transparency vs Impunity; Awe vs Derision. In the case of the impeachment, we not only get overwhelmed by legalese and details, we lose the import of the proceedings through reductive binary relationships. The mechanism of impeachment is more than transparency, it is more than accountability, it connects intrinsically to the role of the People in a country and the relationship between a citizenry and its government. Yet, the role of the People in this impeachment and the Constitution has been little touched on; other than a brief statement by Senator Juan Ponce Enrile in his opening remarks and a few statements by talking heads.

The public framing, by both media and the government, of the impeachment has been a concern. Though there have been attempts to do so, it seems to fail to connect the Filipino people to the proceedings and instead leaves us to agentless by-standers. A common refrain has been that the ‘poor’ can’t connect to the proceedings. Another misguided assertion that ignores the importance of a government cognizant of its role and responsibilities in providing service to the People.  As it is today, governance seems to operate at a distance from the people. Again, this is more than accountability, more than transparency, it is linked deeply to the role of government in the lives of Filipinos and how we relate to that government. But just as importantly, the way that the impeachment is being handled by journalists gives insight into the relationship between media and the Filipino people. Should journalists be educational? Should they attempt to provide deeper meaning to proceedings such as this?

In our system, media members have become public intellectuals. It is a burden that they must bear, a responsibility they should own up to. In this instance, I think Evangelista failed to live up to that responsibility. She took the slick simplistic way out. That does not mean that all media has, in fact I have been impressed with the quality of the coverage of the minutiae of the case. It is controversial issues such as this that allow us to see the quality of media. Unlike the Supreme Court, the Executive, or Legislative, media survives on the respect of the people. Their power is derived from their ability to remain ethical, cogent, and inspirational. Our clicks, our views, our subscriptions, are our votes. Much like politicians, media pandering for attention does little to educate, and far more to degrade discourse. That is a loss for the People too.

Instead of crowding out private investments in education, we should have encouraged it. But the 1987 Constitution, the mother of all our decrepit institutions, frowns on that. It imagines that the state, with its chronic fiscal deficits and weak revenue systems, should as well shoulder the entire cost of educating a population. That is a delusion. We are now reaping the bitter fruit of that delusion.

Our state policy should have been in the direction of encouraging the education market to grow rather than crowding out private participation in the provision of a vital service.

Instead of running educational facilities itself, the state should have expanded educational access by issuing vouchers to deserving students and by expanding a student loan program to ease the financial load of private beneficiaries. In such a system of direct subsidy to the truly deserving, that state might have benefited an even larger number.

Substandard 2 - FIRST PERSON By Alex Magno | The Philippine Star News Opinion

The Magnos and Pedrosas of the world who take any opportunity to push their anti-constitutional position is really starting to get irritating. You know what? The US Constitution is a piece of crap.  But they respect the damn thing and have been amending it ever since.  But the core of the Constitution has not changed. Let’s not forget the Bill of Rights, suffrage and so forth were added on later.

The Japanese Constitution foisted on them post-WWII was (is) seriously flawed; but they learned to work with it. I am not sure where this penchant to try and completely redo something every time you disagree with it, but I know from whom it flows from (GMA).

Our constitution is flawed; there’s no denying that (party-lists anyone?). But to continually insult and debase the highest law in the land, the law that governs our country, shows a distinct lack of respect. And that lack of respect is in turn imparted through their writing; which in turn is passed on to the readers; who in turn, turn around and use a flawed Constitution as the root of all of our problems. It’s not and people (columnists and apologists) should stop using it as such.

The amending the Constitution movement has become the vogue go to panacea. Guess what? If we have a parliamentary system we will still have warlords - as a matter of fact they will be even more empowered in a parliamentary system. Even if you have a parliamentary system, guess what? You will still have graft and corruption if nothing is done here and now.

The simple fact is we have a good system of government in place, we have good laws and good policies.  What we do not need to do is sweep the whole thing under the rug and try and start over.  What we need to do is start enforcing and respecting the laws that are in place. And that starts with respecting the Constitution.  You know, that little document that governs the entire country. In denigrating that, you are undermining our entire government and legal system.

Oh, and with regards to his voucher system.  Idiotic. Completely and totally.  It failed miserably in the United States.  Miserably.  Free market guy strikes again. Except his policies and ideas are rapidly becoming outdated.  Free markets will not improve education; that has been proven before.  If anything it will undermine the quality of education for the simple fact that education will then be forced onto a totally metric based evaluation system. And that more than anything else will undermine the primary goal of education:  To teach people how to think.  We’ve forgotten that.

Private funds can be used to redevelop the education system, but not private interests.  They are called muni-bonds. Education can be funded via private interests, but not privately run.  Private corporations in education is a nightmare. At the end of the day, good education, and after-school educational programs, are expensive.  That’s part of the reason why private universities are so expensive (in the US though, most private institutions are non-profit.  Notice the best schools are usually religious run?).  The voucher system even more so. What if students choose to go to other schools? What happens if districts prefer to go elsewhere? Will they be allowed to shift schools to seek what they deem is better?

Look, Professor Magno, certain things should not be taken away from the state. Public school education is one of them. The state has the economies of scale and the wide reach to implement a system that, from the ground roots, is focused on developing young minds.  Private interests will never ever do that.  Why? Because they are private interests and eventually shareholder/stakeholder/bottom line considerations will intervene.  It always happens.

But, then again, I doubt you would understand that. Much like Marxism/Communism/Socialism before, capitalism and the panacea of free markets is dead.  

Case-in-point, look at the US. An education system and economy in shambles, sacrificed before the alter of free markets and free trade.  Case-in-point look at the quality of our manufacturing and agriculture industries post-Ramos “I love freemarkets” presidency. It is a dead philosophy.  Mourn it and move.  It is time to develop a new philosophy.  

Benevolent protectionism anyone?

NIC (National International Cooperative)?

Eh…it’s a work in progress, but it is where the world, and global markets, are slowly moving.