Dancing the ocho-ocho from “revolution” to “institution”

Written on Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008 at 12:12 pm | by benign0

Abe is a real funny sort of “expert“. If my reading faculties aren’t playing games with me, I’d say that he undertook here a rather laughable effort to try to build a framework of rules/guidelines and even a process to actually model or even (God forbid!) govern the way a “people power” fiesta is brought about.

First he sets the initial conditions:

[…] if the government abuses its powers or ignores the limitations the people impose on those powers, and existing curative or rectifying process is unavailing owing to the very same abuse of power or misuse of privileges, then the collectivity can empower itself to remove the abusive and unjust government and enter into a new arrangement

Holy jargon infestation Batman!

May I ask, professor: Who or what (and by what set of rules) determines what is “abuse [of] power”, and/or whether “existing or rectifying process” is “unavailable“? And what exactly are the mechanisms by which “the collectivity can empower itself to remove the abusive and unjust government and enter into a new arrangement”?

Oh yes, there is that quintessentially-Pinoy trial-by-Media using our world-renowned hearsay evidence.

A few more painful contortions of our wordsmith and voila! A magical outcome:

Once a successful People Power is acquiesced in by the people, a new covenant is thereby established which sets into motion the democratic cycle anew.

And yes, Filipinos are indeed a special people — so special as to have our own “special” way of implementing democracy:

With People Power, the Filipinos have taken a different route, which, if served well by living room politics and allowed full sway, could open up a whole lot of possibilities. If fully empowered, Filipinos as active participants in some genuine democratic processes could explore alternative political styles of thought or arrangements outside the range of the elite consensus. Without rocking the boat, the possibilities could be infinite . . . (including a reexamination of) the supposed virtues of “market-democracy” with its promise of opportunity to save mankind or putting to the test People Power itself in some other contexts than as “parliamentary of the streets” . . . if only to find out on an on-going basis what works and what doesn’t.

Fat chance, gramps.

The original Edsa “revolution” was not born out of a process nor was it orchestrated by any one person or institution. How could it have been? The concept did not even exist before 1986! Edsa 1 was no more than a lucky (some would say “divine” — to each his own) coming together of little random events and people culminating into that mother of ocho-ocho undertakings we now worship ad-infinitum today. The winners of that lucky event get to write history. Go figure.

Again, this is another one of those ironies that underpin our society but utterly escapes the faculties of its brightest bulbs. The original Edsa 1 is celebrated as a fortuitous momentuous event (which, by the way, makes the concept a convenient target for organised religion to hijack). Yet we now presume to foresee and even plan such things. Abe here adds the icing and actually tries to institutionalise it.

Onli in da Pinas.

I notice too, Professor, that you now steer clear of the R-word (revolution — shhhhh…. ;) ). Clever.

Excuse my simple mind, but “People Power” in the sense that we discuss it here (and always have) is a revolutionary, therefore extra-legal and no-joke manong, a rebellious undertaking. You kinda attempt to soften it up, even legitimise the concept by re-packaging the idea that “people power” (presumably in the Pinoy context) is:

[…] the idea that the people collectively establish governments that may rule over people individually; and individuals agree to such an arrangement to be ruled, by obeying laws promulgated by the government as long as the government so established protects the people’s rights.

Nice try, but unfortunately NOT TRUE, dude.

Don’t insult our intelligence by trying to re-cast “people power” into some benign “idea” that you can work (or rather sneak) into a position that puts it side-by-side with legitimate democratic exercises enshrined in the Constitution. It is NOT and certainly NEVER has been regarded nor practiced as such.

This is the way I see it :

Democracy is the system of governance (a system of institutions, laws, and processes) that provides a means for people to represent themselves and elect their representation.

[add that as another “benign0-ism” to your list ;) ]

The actual power of the people is…

:D Expressed;
:D Canvassed; and,
:D Legitimised

… VIA the mechanisms and institutions embodied in The System.

People Power is not an “idea” that stands alone nor is it independent of the concept of democracy.

It is in the second item where you latch your nice-try “idea” of what “people power” is. In practice a People Power “Revolution” is supposed to be some kind of self-evident canvass of the “people’s will”. And this is where the irony (yet another one) that apparently escapes your “expert” mind comes in. In a people power “revolution”, only the mob rules. There is no system with any semblance of underlying rigour or science to canvass this “will” in a way that reduces the arbitrariness of its outcome in any significant way.

So what is the arbitrary measure of a “successful” ocho-ocho revolution, professor? Is it a mob of 500,000? One million? Two million?

Oh I forgot, you did mention this useful caveat:

For a collective decision requires neither a perfect unanimity nor even a numerical majority supposedly determined in the ordinary course in an open tally sheet (as in a plebiscite or a recall process.)

First you make rules, then suddenly you say there are none. Ano nga ba talaga?

There is NO USEFUL outcome from people power where there is no system to channel it; much as the same way that uncontrolled fission outside of a rigourously-engineered nuclear reactor merely destroys as it releases its energy in a USELESS manner.

So to conclude professor, I have one other thing to say in light of this final “musing” of yours:

If we don’t stop Arroyo’s perilous tack now, her regime, just like Marcos’, will leave, to borrow [benign0’s] metaphor, an “unsightly scar” in our nationhood.

Tell that to the Filipino Voter — the next time they hit the ballots.

Get Real Philippines!

============
Join us on Facebook!
Join us on Facebook!

Tags: , , , ,
Add to del.icio.us | Digg this! | Yahoo MyWeb | Google Bookmark It! | Stumble It!
About The Author: benign0 is the Webmaster of GetRealPhilippines.COM and has once been described as "one of the most enthusiastic hecklers of the politically-passionate" by a respected journalist.

Filed Under Politics, Society

Related Entries:

Comments

18 Responses to “Dancing the ocho-ocho from “revolution” to “institution””

  1. GabbyD on December 2nd, 2008 1:19 pm

    indeed, i too was shocked at what i read… i posted a question where Abe posted his comments…

    http://www.filipinovoices.com/expert-damage#comment-21120

    i shall copy/paste here:

    Abe N. Margallo on December 2nd, 2008 10:23 am

    your comment left me shaken… you really DO embrace Extra-Constitutional measures…

    There are so many questions i want to ask, so much to discuss.

    Let me begin with small bites: The Philippine Constitution

    “In a *narrower* *legal* sense, People Power is *now* an insert into our constitutional order as a result of EDSA I. It finds support in a number of express provisions in the 1987 Constitution (see for example Article XIII, Sections 15 and 16 of the Constitution defining the role and rights of people’s organizations separately from the right peaceably to assemble or to petition the government for redress of grievances as well as in Article VI, Sections1 and 32 in relation to Article XVII, Section 2 reserving to the people the power of initiative and referendum.) ”

    –> * are mine

    In what sense is people power/ extra-constitutional a people’s organization?, which is defined as “… bona fide associations of citizens with demonstrated capacity to promote the public interest and with identifiable leadership, membership, and structure.”

    In what sense is people power the “power of inititative and referendum”?

    The constitution says:
    Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.

    During EDSA I, was there a petition being circulated?

    In what sense is this a NARROW, LEGAL reading of the philippine constitution?

    There are so many other interesting questions that your comment raised. i realize that the FV forum is not the best/most convenient place to conduct a long-haul discussion, but i’m crossing my fingers anyway.

  2. Jeg on December 2nd, 2008 2:31 pm

    Pfsh. Extra-constitutional means are written INTO the constitution. And even if it isnt, it is an eternal principle that is the basis of modern republics: “The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.”

    Where does sovereignty reside again? Is it in the State? Is it in the government? Is it in the presidency, the courts, the Congress? No. It resides in the people. If the people do not want the government, they can change it. The constitution isnt above the people. The people is above the constitution. That’s basic.

    Having said that we do need to find a way to get around the problem of ‘people power’ as it is right now, especially as it is after the forces behind EDSA2 gamed it. Im thinking of some kind of recall procedure akin to the People’s Initiative for charter change.

  3. Ben Kritz on December 2nd, 2008 10:45 pm

    @Jeg,

    You’re right, but the precedence of the People over the Constitution is expressed by the provisions for changing the Constitution, or even scrapping it and starting over entirely if need be. There is no ‘extralegality’ written into it.

  4. Ben Kritz on December 2nd, 2008 10:52 pm

    Just curious, are any of the cha-cha or con-ass or air-con or choo-choo or whatever they’re calling them ideas for an assembly to amend the Constitution actually constitutional? Is the process spelled out in any greater detail than what GabbyD posted, or is it vague enough that what they’re proposing could qualify as legitimate interpretations of the constitution’s provisions?

  5. mlq3 on December 3rd, 2008 12:14 am

    what is the difference between what abe wrote, and what those dead white males wrote:

    That to secure these rights [to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

    ?

  6. mlq3 on December 3rd, 2008 12:18 am

    gabby, i believe the answers to your questions are in decisions by the supreme court making a distinction from narrow amendments and revisions to the constitution. the public can (through a process that turns out to be highly expensive and time-consuming, in a sense perhaps more so than other ways, i.e. through congress) propose changes such as changing the duration of terms. but more substantive changes, apparently, can only be proposed either by congress acting as a constituent assembly (and there is a debate as to how and when it does so, convene as a constitutent assembly) or by a convention which can propose amendments or an entirely new constitution.

  7. GabbyD on December 3rd, 2008 2:31 am

    @mlq3 on December 3rd, 2008 12:18 am

    oh yeah, that what i thought the 1987 constitution says!

    But abe is claiming that people power (edsa I) is written INTO the constitution. This alone is strange, because it is logically impossible to have an extra-constitutional method written into the constitution! But he also said you can glean this from the document from a “narrow: and “legal” reading, which compounds the problem!

  8. Abe N. Margallo on December 3rd, 2008 6:12 am

    GabbyD,

    I hope my piece in http://redsherring.blogspot.com/2006/09/your-honors-its-pig-in-poke.html will help explain my point, the relevant portion of which is quoted below.

    Artemio Panganiban, then a justice of the Philippine Supreme Court, was passionate in his dissent in Santiago v. COMELEC (March 1997):

    “Initiative, like referendum and recall is a new and treasured feature of the Filipino constitutional system. All three are institutionalized legacies of the world-admired EDSA people power. Like elections and plebiscites, they are hallowed expressions of popular sovereignty. They are sacred democratic rights of our people to be used as their final weapons against political excesses, opportunism, inaction, oppression and misgovernance; as well as their reserved instruments to exact transparency, accountability and faithfulness from their chosen leaders. While on the one hand, their misuse and abuse must be resolutely struck down, on the other, their legitimate exercise should be carefully nurtured and zealously protected.”

    I agree. The Santiago decision has failed to pay full respect to the institutional groundwork of people power democracy as laid down in the Philippine Constitution.

    The 1987 Constitution, a product of People Power uprising, under the very first section of the article on Legislative Department, has reserved to the principal, the sovereign Filipino people, a provision for initiative and referendum as an express legislative power-sharing mechanism co-existent with that so delegated by the same sovereign to the agency of the Legislature. This is a fundamental drift from a purely representative government that cannot be simply brushed aside.

    I subscribe to the idea that a government is democratic if the process of arriving at its decisions is compatible with the ability of ordinary citizens or non-leaders to have control over their leaders. And this control takes place when leaders are periodically held accountable to the citizens or the decisions of leaders can be directly influenced (through the process of competition among active citizens to turn their preferences into policies) or modified or set aside by the citizens, constitutionally through free elections and initiative, or extra-constitutionally through the exercise of self-defense against lawlessness or viciousness of errant leaders. It be pointed out however that the people’s right of self-defense is extra-constitutional only in a textual sense since it both precedes and inheres in the Constitution.

    I have further written that: “The triumph of People Power democracy should be measured not upon its physical manifestation that successfully brought about the immediate change desired, which is an end in itself, but when the consensus formed by civil society or civil societies - those politically informed, active and diverse minorities groups such as the business sectors, political alliances, labor unions, religious organizations, and the like - is brought to be reckoned with by those formally vested with policymaking. It is thus a continuing transformative citizenship.”

  9. Abe N. Margallo on December 3rd, 2008 6:52 am

    Benigs, first, one preliminary: Is it fair to assume that you either agree or can live with the rest of what’s said in my comment that did not alert your “reading faculties”?

    Now these (I will limit myself to five questions for now):

    1) Would your faculties, any or a combination of them, be able to appreciate that a body of reasonable men and women is capable of discerning that certain exercise of governmental power can in fact be patently arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory?

    Example: Supposing that Congress passed a law which upon being adjudged to be constitutional by the SC is now being threatened to be enforced by the Executive. The law provides that the right to vote is available only to those who can dance the ocho ocho (or maybe the “brown bag” jerk). Would your faculty still require some posited “set of rules” to determine whether the passage, judicial interpretation and enforcement of the law constitute an abuse of governmental power?

    2) Would you consider yourself to be anti-democratic if you join a fiesta protest march to force the government abrogate the law in the above example? Or would you rather be a good citizen, learn the ocho ocho or the jerk obligingly and avail of your right to vote?

    3) Since Marcos, the Filipino dictator, was removed from office by the collective action of only a minority of one million or so “people power” protesters, would you consider Marcos to have been removed from office undemocratically? Or would you rather consider counting the less intense tens of million more Filipinos who cheered the protesters but stayed home, to determine whether a “majority decision” in fact existed to terminate the dictatorship?

    4) If doing the bidding of your superior faculty you consider Marcos to have been removed undemocratically by some ocho ocho radicals that did not constitute the majority, would you consider Cory Aquino’s government to be unlawful the whole time (and therefore it could have never been legitimated by acquiescence) since there was no way an insignificant rebel group (compared to the general adult populace) could have empowered itself to throw out the abusive and unjust government of the dictator and enter into a new arrangement or covenant?

    5) Lastly, do you agree or disagree with the following quotes:

    “When the people fear the government, there is Tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is Liberty.” – Jefferson

    [A]t the moment it would seem that the most defensible, perhaps even the truest, answer to the question would be to say that the majority ought to be sovereign, rather than the best, where the best are few. For it is possible that the many, no one of whom taken singly is a good man, may yet taken all together be better than the few, not individually but collectively, in the same way that a feast to which all contribute is better than one is given at one man’s expense. For where there are many people, each has some share of goodness and intelligence, and when these are brought together, they become as it were one multiple man with many pairs of feet and hands and many minds. So too in regard to character and the powers of perception. That is why the general public is a better judge of works of music and poetry; some judge some parts, some others, but their joint pronouncement is a verdict upon the whole.” - Aristotle

  10. GabbyD on December 3rd, 2008 6:53 am

    @Abe N. Margallo on December 3rd, 2008 6:12 am

    thanks for responding!

    YES, from this comment, you are saying:
    1) Extra-Constitutional methods for changing power/constitution is NOT written in the constitution. What IS written is the power of referendum initiated by the people.

    OK.

    Glad to hear it :)

    In this case, i totally agree, and from the links you provided (thanks!), it seems the key problem is a lack of an enabling law.

    Another thing for congress to do, eh!

    2) Your opinions on Extra-Constitutional action is YOUR OWN, which i am definitely fine with.

    you write:
    “I subscribe to the idea that a government is democratic if the process of arriving at its decisions is compatible with the ability of ordinary citizens or non-leaders to have control over their leaders. And this control takes place when … or extra-constitutionally through the exercise of self-defense against lawlessness or viciousness of errant leaders. It be pointed out however that the people’s right of self-defense is extra-constitutional only in a **textual sense** since it both precedes and inheres in the Constitution. ”

    i assume “textual sense” means, not a literal reading, which is fine…

    i also take no issue the concept of “people’s right of self-defense”.

    The problem lies in what context is self-defense rightfully used.

    In a society, there will always be opposing policies. If one side loses, can the losing side just, up, take to the streets and impose its will?

    We need to get into your quote on Madison, but if i understand your position on the madison quote, your answer is YES!

    Any time a coalition/faction flexes its muscles and wins, it can and should impose its will over the others (which may or may not be a numerical majority — a mobilizable faction need not be the numerical majority. in fact for street movements, it probably isn’t).

    Am I right in my interpretation of your comments on Madison?

  11. Ocho-ocho “revolutions”: From serendipitous event to engineered perversion | Filipino Voices on December 3rd, 2008 9:03 am

    […] Nice try: what is the difference between what abe wrote, and what those dead white males wrote: […]

  12. GabbyD on December 3rd, 2008 9:22 am

    Abe N. Margallo on December 3rd, 2008 6:52 am

    I’d like to try to answer!

    1) YES. BUT the people making this judgement ought to be able to explain why. Specifically, the arguments ought to be found in the constitution itself, or laws that already exist.

    For you example, apart from the conditions specified under the constitution, there cannot be a test to participate in elections, especially a test to discriminate among citizens (i.e. those that pass the minimal conditions set out in the constitution). So, requiring people to dance is OUT (paano kaming mga lampa :)), or education is OUT, Income is OUT, etc…

    Let me tie this to the Madison quote. The law should protect the rights of citizens, including the minority. I think thats a great idea, and constrains the elected government from doing something that hurts people — like requiring them to dance :) ouch indeed! [i’m not making fun of your hypothetical, in fact its a great way to test the limits of political thought]

    2) Marching is fine. Freedom of expression is great. Convince people, make it an issue in the elections. Make elections about ISSUES, and in your own words, “use political competition” to help the country.

    Consider Prop 8 in CA. YES won. Its considered discriminatory by many (clearly, not the majority coz YES won). there were protests. But did they bomb buildings? stand in front of freeways? NO. This is a fight thats been going on for decades now, and it will continue, under the rules set by existing law.

    3)Marcos is a dictator. He was not playing by the rules. He had his opponents jailed, killed. He curtailed freedoms under false pretenses (i think all of this is OFFICIALLY not proven, but everyone believed this at the time).

    In other words, he suspended the usual rules of democracy and arrogated power onto himself. He had cronies. He crushed business who opposed him.

    To make the case for massmovement for a change in political systems, you have to have a convincing case that he/she is a dictator. Notice, that we gave Marcos the benefit of the doubt early on; it was only much later (the death of Ninoy) that started to bring him down.

    4) yup, see 3. Thats a revolution for you… Whats cool about EDSA I, was that it was bloodless, a fairly rare thing for revolutions; and that it led to democracy, when typically revolutions end up with another dictator in charge.

    This was why EDSA I was such a great and special thing! Not that it created a third way for people to effect whatever change they want, but as an example of how to combat a dictatorship.

    5)Absa-F_inglutely! on Jefferson

    Re aristotle? is this an argument VS the philosopher king concept? In general YES, as long as individual liberties are maintained.

  13. benign0 on December 3rd, 2008 9:33 am

    Abe, sorry to see you have to write such a long comment, but for me it all merely comes down to this flawed question of yours:

    Since Marcos, the Filipino dictator, was removed from office by the collective action of only a minority of one million or so “people power” protesters, would you consider Marcos to have been removed from office undemocratically?

    The flaw here is that you compare D’Original Edsa One to the construct that you call “people power” (i.e. ocho-ocho “revolution”) in what you express today, such as in this gem:

    […] the collectivity can empower itself to remove the abusive and unjust government and enter into a new arrangement […]

    Apples-to-oranges, professor.

    As I mention in my latest piece, Edsa One was a fortunate product of serendipity — something that no one moron can claim credit for. But the perversions of it that followed were artificially induced circuses orchestrated by the very “few” that you guys ironically revile.

    I think GabbyD does a brilliant job of addressing the rest of your “expert” questions. ;)

  14. Bencard on December 3rd, 2008 9:36 am

    gabbyd, take away the pompous verbosity, it all boils down to a claimed “right” of the losers to change the rules after the game is played. with due respect to madison (who, btw, only represents one particular point of view), this kind of reasoning enables relatively tiny groups, which can generate loud-enough noise, to effect extra-legal results with impunity. the most irksome part of it is the cavalier use of the term “people” in such a way as to exclude those with contrary views (which could be the majority).

  15. benign0 on December 3rd, 2008 9:42 am

    GabbyD, this one of yours was particularly brilliant:

    Marching is fine. Freedom of expression is great. Convince people, make it an issue in the elections. Make elections about ISSUES, and in your own words, “use political competition” to help the country.

    Now if we can build a SOLUTION with that simple principle of yours as its nucleus, I’d count that as thinking and doing something DIFFERENT for a change. ;)

    It’s simple, really™

  16. Jeg on December 3rd, 2008 10:16 am

    MLQ3: but more substantive changes [to the constitution], apparently, can only be proposed either by congress acting as a constituent assembly …or by a convention

    If there’s to be a cha-cha, I’d like to see one of the items up for referendum to be People’s Initiative be allowed to propose more substantive changes; revisions, rather than mere amendments.

  17. Conyo on December 3rd, 2008 11:21 pm

    Jefferson also said:

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

    Kaya, revolution na tayo! Edsa IV, na gyud!

    See you at Starbucks :)

  18. Juwan_D on December 3rd, 2008 11:28 pm

    kung rebolusyon…ok yun…pero dapat kampo kampo…dun kami sa cebu kampi ang visayas…kalabanin ang metro manila…masaya yun kasi karamihan ng mga super kurakot at magnanakaw nasa metro manila…

    yahooooooooooooooooo…

    sunugin ang mga politiko!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Leave a Reply