Travails of PH democracy: The mischiefs of factions

BY YEN MAKABENTA

“E of Alexander Hamilton, is the American constitutional republic that rings true and has much relevance to in an earlier column to explain what I perceive as the apparent success of Presi

- tesy of James Madison, is a second idea from America’s beginnings that merits useful study in understanding our national situation today.

The American founders worried that small dedicated minorities would hijack the country’s poli - By faction, he meant, “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion or of interest, adverse to the rights other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests

Madison blamed factions for “the instability, injustice and confusion that have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments ev

Madison found his solution to the mischief of factions in a government with countervailing powers, in the concept of check and balance between the branches of government. By this means, he ventured that a republic would achieve prudent, orderly and stable government. But he would discover, when he became the fourth president of the United States, that centrifugal forces in the balance or manage.

A nation in stalemate

Madison’s concept of the mischief of factions is a useful tool of Philippine democracy today, which ironically have sprouted at a time when the country appears to be getting its act together and performing creditably on the economic and foreign policy spheres.

particular situation.

- tional life swamped literally and simultaneously by multiple problems in the political landscape.

A quick survey of the political scene shows the following dramas engaging the nation:

First, after regaling the citizenry for months about convening as a constituent assembly in order to amend the Constitution, the House of Representatives and the Senate have gone in separate directions, denouncing each other. They now threaten each other with dire consequences, each threatening the other

If ever an institution was locked in a stalemate, the Philippine Congress is one. The entire initiative for constitutional reform has gone is going now.

Until everyone is dead

A second travail is the House hearing of the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno. She has sworn that she will not be pressured into sensational damaging testimony of so many, and her negative approval ratings. Particularly hard on her fellow justices, who have - stitution and court regulations during her watch.

It would appear that Sereno is now determined to surpass even - preme Court, Cayetano Arellano, who served for 18 years.

Sereno’s fellow justices and employees of the Supreme Court this decision to stay on as CJ, until all of them are probably dead, because she will turn 70 only in 2030.

This forces the nation now to make some serious calculations. Must it suffer this appointment of Benigno Aquino 3rd, until it becomes a farce in the eyes of the world?

Sereno has evidently adopted the position that the House formally impeach her, so she can stand trial get better treatment and more sympathizers among the senator-jurors.

Rappler wants it both ways

Also, a real travail is the case of Rappler and the revocation of its Securities and Commission (SEC).

Some see the case as unmistakable proof that President Duterte is bent on suppressing all media and journalists who are critical of his government and its policies. Inquir

er columnist Randy David says as much in his column (“Rappler and PhilippineDailyin

quirer, January 21, 2018). He offers a curious solution: Let Rappler cure the defect in its registration.

Others contend that this is a case purely of government enforcing a corporate ownership law embodied in the Constitution, and not an attempt by the State to suppress a media corporation. Rappler clearly violated the Constitution. There’s no court anywhere it can win the issue.

Times columnist Sass Rogando Sasot wrote in a hard-hitting col-

ManilaTimes, January 18, 2018) that Rappler has perpetrated a grand deception on the nation. On the one hand, Rappler claims the SEC that “it is not engaged in - vent the constitutional restriction on foreign ownership and control of mass media in the country. On press freedom and escape the long arm of the law, it claims to be a media entity that is a torchbearer of freedom of the press in the Philippines. Sasot concluded with disdain: “In other words, Rappler wants to eat our Constitution and

During the weekend I had a discussion with another journalist about the case of Rappler. Everyone has said his piece on the case. Why not me? Have I no opinion on this? Did the SEC violate the press freedom of Rappler? Does an online website enjoy all the rights organizations like the ManilaTimes and the country’s major broadcast networks? Are all media entities identical in their protections regardless of the service to the public interest that they provide?

Is the Rappler case comparable with the case of the

Times and the WashingtonPost when they fought the US administration over their right to publish the Pentagon Papers?

It is false heroics and delusional to imagine that the Rappler case measures up in importance and significance with the Pentagon Papers case. Small-time will betray itself upon scrutiny. It is unthinkable that the world of journalism will be talking about the Rappler case a year or so or a decade from now.