We hold these truths to be self-evident
by: Rev. Fr. Ranhilio C. Aquino
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, 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 to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils
by: Rev. Fr. Ranhilio C. Aquino
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, 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 to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils
are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” A duly-elected government — an assumption itself seriously put into doubt when allegations about systematic electoral fraud are made and substantiated — does not provide continuing guarantee of the validity of all its acts. And what justifies the overthrow of government is not that it has lost popularity but that a design to reduce all to despotism is clearly evinced by a series of discoveries that unravel subterfuge, deception, double-talk and duplicity. The corollary proposition of political theory is that a popular government is not necessarily a legitimate government. The tell-tale signs of a government that no longer warrants the allegiance and support of the people is a government that has become self-serving, and dangerously so when it continues to protest its concern for the common weal and its determination to stump out corruption!
Institutions are subverted when the very system of checks and balances is paralyzed. When one has a Legislature that cannot refuse Executive agenda because it is pampered — as the disclosures of late have shown — with largesse that is really owed the people, there is a subversion of the very institutions that guarantee the legitimacy of government. A captive Legislature — no matter its vehement protests at independence — emasculates constitutional provisions on accountability, especially when impeachment depends on whether you have a war-chest hefty enough to placate those quite ready to bring pen to paper, to endorse an impeachment complaint when there is no pandering to their varied whims (not-too-cleverly disgusied as “public concerns”). I am not eager for all the languor and national fatigue that come with impeachment proceedings — but holding even the highest officials accountable should remain a real possibility. Even more provocative is the despotism that shows itself when on a charge as flimsy as a misstated SALN, the whole impeachment machinery can be brough to bear on a high official publicly humiliated and identified the President’s foe!
There is a despotism that depends on numbers, as despots in Roman times regularly threw bread and coin at the howling multitudes to hold them in check. When, faced with a pending court case with the possibility that DAP is declared unconstitutitional, one seeks mass appeal for its approval and effectively pre-empts judicial resolution by miseducating the multitudes into believing that — processes be damned — DAP is money that belongs to them and must go to them, then you effectively paint the justices of the Supreme Court in the worst possible hues — anti-poor, “kalaban ng mga boss” — should they rule agains the legality of the presidential use of savings!
There is despotism when policing agencies of the state — such as the COA — are asked to look in one direction and not the other. For, shocking and dismaying as the Napoles scam may be, there are crimes as putrid and disgusting, but not looked into. One wonders, for example, about special audits commenced at the behest of troubled and truly concerned citizens, but that go nowhere when powerful intercessors address effective supplications that muffle further comment and disclosure! Of this, I might write more later.
Finally, it is the worst form of the betrayal of democracy to put up with appearances of freedom and liberty — free speech, free press, free assembly and association — while, in some war room, writings of critics are monitored and means are found, as effective as they are unobstrusive, to harass, intimidate, silence and smother.
A popular government (assuming claims at popularity are veridical) is not necessarily a legitimate government, for legitimacy, as social and political philosophers tell us, is born out of engaging all in that communicative action by which a common definition of the situation is arrived at through rational exchange — that kind of exchange that seriously responds to objections and persuades through the better argument, and not through the counting of upraised hands, many of them in the air for the most irrational of reasons. It does not behoove us to submit to the preponderance of irrationality!
Institutions are subverted when the very system of checks and balances is paralyzed. When one has a Legislature that cannot refuse Executive agenda because it is pampered — as the disclosures of late have shown — with largesse that is really owed the people, there is a subversion of the very institutions that guarantee the legitimacy of government. A captive Legislature — no matter its vehement protests at independence — emasculates constitutional provisions on accountability, especially when impeachment depends on whether you have a war-chest hefty enough to placate those quite ready to bring pen to paper, to endorse an impeachment complaint when there is no pandering to their varied whims (not-too-cleverly disgusied as “public concerns”). I am not eager for all the languor and national fatigue that come with impeachment proceedings — but holding even the highest officials accountable should remain a real possibility. Even more provocative is the despotism that shows itself when on a charge as flimsy as a misstated SALN, the whole impeachment machinery can be brough to bear on a high official publicly humiliated and identified the President’s foe!
There is a despotism that depends on numbers, as despots in Roman times regularly threw bread and coin at the howling multitudes to hold them in check. When, faced with a pending court case with the possibility that DAP is declared unconstitutitional, one seeks mass appeal for its approval and effectively pre-empts judicial resolution by miseducating the multitudes into believing that — processes be damned — DAP is money that belongs to them and must go to them, then you effectively paint the justices of the Supreme Court in the worst possible hues — anti-poor, “kalaban ng mga boss” — should they rule agains the legality of the presidential use of savings!
There is despotism when policing agencies of the state — such as the COA — are asked to look in one direction and not the other. For, shocking and dismaying as the Napoles scam may be, there are crimes as putrid and disgusting, but not looked into. One wonders, for example, about special audits commenced at the behest of troubled and truly concerned citizens, but that go nowhere when powerful intercessors address effective supplications that muffle further comment and disclosure! Of this, I might write more later.
Finally, it is the worst form of the betrayal of democracy to put up with appearances of freedom and liberty — free speech, free press, free assembly and association — while, in some war room, writings of critics are monitored and means are found, as effective as they are unobstrusive, to harass, intimidate, silence and smother.
A popular government (assuming claims at popularity are veridical) is not necessarily a legitimate government, for legitimacy, as social and political philosophers tell us, is born out of engaging all in that communicative action by which a common definition of the situation is arrived at through rational exchange — that kind of exchange that seriously responds to objections and persuades through the better argument, and not through the counting of upraised hands, many of them in the air for the most irrational of reasons. It does not behoove us to submit to the preponderance of irrationality!