Public deaths, on the other hand, serve a social purpose. For instance, public executions are meant to be cathartic events in which society extracts its pound of flesh, as it were. It supposedly serves as a deterrent to criminal or aberrant behavior and reflects the manner by which justice is served within a community. It’s also morbidly entertaining and can even be interactive, such as in the practice of stoning or the spectators’ participation in the gory events in the Roman Colosseum.

Other public deaths, such as the assassination of Ninoy Aquino, serve as a catalyst for social upheaval and change.

Suicide is a more complicated phenomenon in which no easy generalizations can be made. It can be done privately or in plain of view others, but even the most secretive act of taking one’s life assumes a public aspect upon the discovery of the body. The act itself is shocking under any circumstance, being so contrary to what we normally know and expect of human behavior. Thus, the ripple effects of a suicide extend beyond the immediate family or social circle of the victim to the society at large. I knowingly use the word “victim” as I believe those who kill themselves are casualties of one or another of life’s events which makes continued living unbearable. However, some suicides are more publicly significant that others.

The suicide of Mohamed Boazizi, a young Tunisian who immolated himself in protest over the oppressive and autocratic rule of strongman Zine el Abidine Ben Ali and led to his ouster, is a public death. It started a conflagration which has spread to Egypt and threatens to engulf the entire region. In 60 years, there has never been one case of a successful, popular revolt toppling an Arab regime; now, within a span of 2 months, two governments in the Middle East have fallen.

The suicide of Anglo Reyes is a public death, as he led a public life which, for good or ill, “shaped and reflected the events of his time“. As explained by Prof. Randy David:

Although he was a professional military man, Angelo T. Reyes became a key player in the nation’s political stage. Whether he welcomed it or not, he unexpectedly found himself, as head of the Armed Forces, thrust into the role of political arbiter during the crisis of January 2001. At that crucial moment, the military became, once again, the deciding factor in an unstable political equation. Reyes made the decision to lead his soldiers in withdrawing support from President Joseph Estrada, paving the way for the accession to the presidency of Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Having cast his lot with GMA, Mr. Reyes prospered for a long while, even after he retired from military service. He assumed numerous cabinet posts, in fact too many, according to his detractors. This may have been his undoing as he should have sought elective position earlier, and retained some degree of political power and influence, before he was permanently tarred by the corrupt brush of the shamelessly venal Arroyo administration.

Stripped of political influence, he knew that he was vulnerable. He had a thorough understanding of how the political system works—its hypocrisy, its rottenness, and its rituals of degradation. But he could not summon enough will to bow to its sometimes brutal ways once he found himself at the receiving end of power.

And so he ended his life. And this is not always the easy way out, as many would like to believe. It takes a certain amount to steel in one’s personality to pull the trigger.

On a certain level, his motivation was certainly self-serving. He was, by his own estimation, extremely self-assured, even arrogant in the eyes of others. He wanted to regain some control over events which now threatened to destroy him, his family and what he saw as his historical legacy, most specially as a professional soldier. His suicide was premeditated and not an impulsive act, which are how most suicides are seen by those who study the phenomenon. Angelo Reyes knew what he was doing. He said so himself. In his “last” interview he stated pointedly:

Living life without honor is a tragedy bigger than death itself.

He could have stonewalled and gone the legal route in deflecting the accusations against him. Others have done so and lived to tell the tale (as well as enjoy their ill-gotten wealth). But this was not the soldier’s way. As a warrior, honor impelled him to fall on his sword. In doing so, he was successful to some extent in saving his good name and dignity. This is an example which others similarly situated should consider following, for their own sake and, more importantly, for the good of the country.

The tragedy of Angelo Reyes is that, despite his avowed intention to “come clean”, in the end he did not. He lacked the courage to name names and help cleanse the institutions which he served so loyally and bravely. And he tried to minimize his role by saying, truthfully enough, that: “I did not invent corruption. I walked into it“. But he lacked the will to walk out of it, until the only way he could leave was horizontally and feet first.

Be that as it may, the man is dead, and we condole with his family and friends as “Taps” is played today for a fallen warrior.

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

In rather purple prose, she expressed her indignation at the “coordinated online outrage” by a “Gruesome Malicious Army” and “net-dicts” intending “to wreck havoc on the new, popular government“. It’s GMA and her stooges and a shadowy cabal “who fancy themselves divas of righteousness” behind all this, you see, and it’s all politically-motivated. “Politically-motivated” being the standard, catch-all retort of those caught in the act of bending the rules for their own benefit.

But this argument skirts the central issue of the whole brouhaha, which is that the whole concept was a bad idea to begin with and was simply called out for being what it was – a bad idea. And which is why the head of the new, popular government shelved the whole scheme.

And Ms. Villanueva-Ong, with her Harvard degree (as she takes pains to point out in her article), is dead wrong about there being an orchestrated, unified effort to stick it to the vanguard of the new, popular government (as personified by DOT Usec Vicente “Enteng” Romano, the brains behind the slogan/logo fiasco). By this, she presumably means an attack utilizing social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook and other online communities. Ms. Villanueva-Ong misses the point of what social networking is all about, which is simply to foster social interaction. It’s not primarily to bring about social or political change, although that may well happen. But at its core, social-networking is simply people wanting to connect with other like-minded people. There is no sinister, hidden agenda.

Malcolm Gladwell explains this lucidly in his article in the New Yorker (October 2010) “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted” in which he explains why Tweeter and other new tools of social media will not necessarily be an effective tool for social activism. Gladwell makes a distinction between “strong-tie” groups, for example the nascent Al Qaeda, characterized by a tight, hierarchical organization and pre-existing interpersonal ties between members and what he calls “weak-ties” groups, like Twitter or Facebook, which are loose, democratic and decentralized.

“The platforms of social media are built around weak ties. Twitter is a way of following (or being followed) by people you may never have met. Facebook is a tool for efficiently managing your acquaintances, for keeping up with the people you would not otherwise be able to stay in touch with. That’s why you can have a thousand “friends” on Facebook, as you never could in real life.

The evangelists of social media don’t understand this distinction: they seem to believe that a Facebook friend is the same as a real friend xxx.

Because networks don’t have a centralized leadership structure and clear lines of authority, they have real difficulty reaching consensus and setting goals. They can’t think strategically; they are chronically prone to conflict and error. How do you make difficult choices about tactics or strategy or philosophical direction when everyone has an equal say?”

No one can manage, must less control, the denizens of cyberspace and point them one direction. It’s like herding cats, as I’ve heard it said more than once. At best, social networks can disseminate information and ideas. But concepts, abstractions and theories, once thrown unto the online free market of ideas, live or die on their on merits.

I’m sorry to disappoint Ms. Villanueva-Ong, but there is no movement out there which wants her “stoned, flayed, crucified and burned at the stake“. I can understand her disappointment though because, as she herself reported: “the fight is not about who should lead the marketing effort, but who will disburse the marketing monies“.

This is another clear example of the paranoia afflicting the stalwarts of the new, popular government. They see enemies lurking in every bush, woodpile and website. They refuse to acknowledge the plain, though painful, truth that the cause of all their woes is their own arrogance, ineptitude and cluelessness.

One final word. What is to me very disturbing about Ms. Villanueva-Ong’s article is her saying that the P4.7 million or U.S. $ 105,000 (her own calculations) misspent on the “preview” launch of the “Pilipinas Kay Ganda” concept is a “paltry” sum spent for “food, drinks, fireworks, talents, staging etc.”. For her, maybe, P5 million is small change. But for many Filipinos like me, who have never been near much less had at my disposal such an amount, this is a king’s ransom. Scores of our countrymen die each day for want of even a minuscule fraction of what Ms. Villanueva-Ong considers paltry. And lest Ms. Villanueva-Ong forget, this is the Filipino people’s money, paid for by the blood, sweat, tears and even lives of Filipinos here and abroad. We have a right, as taxpayers, to a proper accounting. We have a right, as Filipinos, to be outraged.

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

Photo by Anton Sheker of Blogwatch.ph

It was a good start, as these things go. The air was festive at the site of the presidential inaugural ceremonies, in the sense that it felt like a campaign rally for Noynoy Aquino. The predominance of yellow was expected although still a bit grating to those of us who were not enamoured of the President to begin with.

The entertainment segment preceding the formal oath-taking was entertaining, although some elements were a bit off. Juana Change as mistress of ceremonies, removed from the context of anti-government rallies, looked lost, fat and freakish. The songs were rehashes of campaign ditties with a few revisions to make them more “inclusive”. There was an earnest attempt to give life to a theme of reconciliation but it was still sounded and felt like a victory party for President Noynoy. Fair enough. He won and is now the Head of State.

P-Noy looked embarrassed at times at the outpouring of love and acclamation. Jojo Binay looked alternately bored and annoyed, slumped next to his boss, but came to life when it was his turn to take the oath of office. The foreign dignitaries looked bemused and bewildered at all the hoopla. Erap Estrada looked pensive, maybe looking back at the many lost opportunities. Kris Aquino appeared troubled but the rest of the Aquino sisters were glowingly beautiful. Chief Justice Renato Corona was putting a good face to an awkward situation.

Or so it seemed to me watching things unfold on T.V. The personalities and speculating on what they might have been feeling was far more interesting than the actual event itself. It is a historical watershed, for all that, and was all it was touted to be: part celebration, part pep rally, part traditional commemoration of yet another shift in the Philippine political galaxy, the first peaceful transition from one administration to another in 12 years.

But as for lasting change ? We shall see.

There was nothing at all earthshaking about his inaugural speech. The same issues which served him well during the campaign were trotted out: the fight against corruption, the need for employment generation, creating a healthy investment climate, adequate health services and the like. He reserved his fighting words for his predecessor and promised that those who thrived under her crooked reign would face the bar of justice. He shrewdly relied on his folksy, populist approach, more reminiscent of Erap than Cory, promising not to tolerate abuses of power but forgetting to mention that “walang kama-kamaganak”.

It certainly creates great expectations from the citizenry, even among us who did not vote for President Aquino. Expectations which, if not managed well, could spell trouble for him down the road. But he knows this, and has brought the Filipino people into the equation, as shown by the repetitive rituals of oath-taking during the ceremony involving the crowd. Just to bring home the point that good governance is everyone’s responsibility.

He sometimes tripped on his words and seemed short of breath, with his smoker’s cough threatening to make an appearance at one point. But all went well in the end.

A few points I can think of why I’m optimistic about a Noynoy presidency.

First, there’s no doubt that he was popularly elected. He can draw on the goodwill and euphoria generated by his having been swept into office in such a fairy-tale fashion. People will cut him some slack, beyond the so-called 100 days honeymoon period. He has the opportunity and luxury of making hard, even unpopular, decisions during his first months in office, maybe until the end of the year. He can make full use of it.

And he has shown some political astuteness in choosing some good people for his cabinet and not limiting his candidates to those who openly supported him and he feels comfortable with. Like Linda Baldoz as Labor Secretary.

Also, he can slap down people if need be, quietly but firmly. He handled Jojo Binay and Gen. Delfin Bangit quite well when they tried to bully him. He put them in their proper place, which is outside what they presumptuously believe is their vested sphere of influence.

As Colin Powell said, being in charge means pissing some people off. Noynoy can show them who’s in charge, if he wants to.

It was raining hard this morning but now the sun’s out. A good sign.

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

To be sure, there is nothing in the Constitution or the law which would compel Noynoy to take his oath of office before the Chief Justice. All that is required is that the person be authorized to administer oaths. For this purpose, a barangay head would be as good as any justice.

But tradition is sometimes weightier than the the letter (or non-letter) of the law. Only two past Philippine presidents (Quezon and Osmena) were not sworn into office by the Philippine C.J., during the commonwealth and war periods. All post-independence presidents took their office of office before the Chief Justice. The reason is simple: this is a recognition of the separation of powers between the three main branches of government and an acknowledgment of the respect and deference due the leader of a supposedly co-equal branch. Although in reality, an imperial presidency trumps both the legislature and judiciary in terms of actual power and prestige.

What then does Chief Justice Puno mean about adhering to the rule of law, when no statute would be violated by Noynoy’s refusal to be sworn in by Corona ? In the consolidated cases of De Castro et. al. vs. the Judicial and Bar Council and Gloria Arroyo, the Supreme Court decreed that the prohibition against midnight appointments is confined to the executive branch and does not include the judiciary. In resolving the motions for reconsideration filed by petitioners De Castro et. al., the Court even more emphatically declared:

The Members of the Court vote on the sole basis of their conscience and the merits of the issues. Any claim to the contrary proceeds from malice and condescension. Neither the outgoing President nor the present Members of the Court had arranged the current situation to happen and to evolve as it has. None of the Members of the Court could have prevented the Members composing the Court when she assumed the Presidency about a decade ago from retiring during her prolonged term and tenure, for their retirements were mandatory. Yet, she is now left with an imperative duty under the Constitution to fill up the vacancies created by such inexorable retirements within 90 days from their occurrence. Her official duty she must comply with. So must we ours who are tasked by the Constitution to settle the controversy.

Simply stated, the Supreme Court gave the green light for GMA to appoint the next Chief Justice and therefore, her appointment of Mr. Justice Corona is valid and legal. Since settled jurisprudence forms part of the law of the land, the De Castro ruling is binding on us all, even presidents-elect. For Noynoy to brush aside the practical effects of settled case law, no matter how distasteful, is to send the message that he considers himself above the law. Like it or not, Corona is the C.J. by virtue of the De Castro ruling.

Of course, all these complications would not have arisen if GMA had the propriety to demur from appointing the next Chief Justice. Or if Corona had the rectitude to refuse the appointment. But things being what they are, we have the unseemly situation of one branch of government openly hostile to another over what is essentially a matter that can be easily resolved.

I am personally puzzled why Noynoy Aquino would make a big fuss over this. It makes for an inauspicious start. This is a chance for Aquino to be gracious and magnanimous in victory. He might even be able to convert Corona into an ally. His petulance is unnecessarily decisive. Worse, it indicates a certain narrow-mindedness and a knee-jerk tendency to portray anything or anyone associated with GMA as inherently evil and threatening, without putting the matter into proper perspective.

To take the oath of office before Corona may be a political gesture but it is hardly meaningless or empty. It shows that the new president has the requisite humility and understanding of how the government works by making his first official act a formal cognizance of the fact that he does not wield absolute power.

The newly elected president ought not, like Napoleon, crown himself, which is what he would be doing if he requires a barangay captain to swear him in. They both belong to the executive branch and it’s a safe bet that he/she supported Noynoy in the elections. What follower would pass up the opportunity to induct his sovereign into office ? Mr. Aquino understandably feels safe with those who idolize him. But it would not be the same as Noynoy reaching out to those he perceives to be his enemies and showing the country that he is big enough to fill his late mother’s shoes.
———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

As always, it’s a chaotic process: long queues, inaccurate voters’ lists, the confused electorate mingling (and occasionally tangling) with the frazzled election officials, shady characters working for the various candidates hovering in the sidelines. A crazy stew exacerbated by the steamy summer heat.

But after you get through the long lines, the voting itself is relatively quick and painless. Simple, fast and apparently transparent. The PCOS machines, at least where we voted, worked wonderfully. I saw smiling faces leaving the polling place. Even the police looked relaxed and happy. Or maybe it’s just me feeling good about politics for the first time in a very long while.

Once we get through this phase of familiarizing ourselves with the technology, there will be no going back. This is what Alvin Toffler called “the synchronization of human behavior with the rhythms of the machine”. After this, people’s perception and expectations about the electoral process will be transformed.

It’s about building trust, as explained by Alejandro Roces. Despite the many initial apprehensions and glitches, automated elections are here to stay. And it may be premature, but I want to congratulate the COMELEC for a job well done.

It is now up to us to live with the consequences of what we did today.

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

Though I have to admit is it’s not hard to like the guy. He’s a decent and well-mannered fellow. Noynoy’s like a buddy from high school who you may not have seen for a number of years but you instantly feel at ease with if you unexpectedly bump into each other. The kind of guy you want to have coffee with or knock down a few beers while watching the latest Pacquiao fight.

But as the next Philippine president ? The prospect makes me very uneasy. Considering his undistinguished public life, no one can deny that he has gotten to where he is solely because he is Ninoy and Cory’s only son. The presumption being that since his parents were historical giants, their progeny will prove to be noble and outstanding as well. History has proven that this is not necessarily so, Gloria Arroyo being the most obvious example. As is Noynoy’s sister, Kris.

Believing in Noynoy on the basis of his parentage is essentially putting yourself in the hands of two dead people. Not a wise basis for decision-making.

What worries me more is that one doesn’t know where he stands on a number of critical issues and, I strongly suspect, neither does he. His platform is full of pap and trendy management buzzwords, leaving me to suspect it was drafted by a cabal of MBA geeks. What part of it can really be attributed to him ? What original ideas has he articulated ?

More to the point, has he honestly lived by the high ideals he espouses ? A cursory examination of the Hacienda Luisita situation provides a ready answer to this.

One doesn’t become a transformational leader just because he says he is, any more than a frog becomes a prince by croaking about it. Even the rabidly pro-Noynoy columnist, Conrad de Quiros, in expounding on transformational leadership, could not bring himself to say that Noynoy fits the bill.

And he can be petulant, whining about the “biased treatment” he receives from the media, as if he expects and deserves nothing but accolades. This is merely unseemly and annoying now, but is a disturbing indicator of possible intolerance and vindictiveness if and when he ascends the highest corridors of power.

The common fear is that Noynoy, because of his perceived intellectual and other character deficiencies, will be easily manipulated by the people around him, who may not necessarily be as upright as he.

Major Tom commented in my earlier entry of our “sense of desperation in our search for a moral and sensible leadership”. Now is a time when people are desperate and need to cling to a hope (De Quiros’ words). Sadly, this desperation has led many to embrace change for the sake of change, as exemplified by Noynoy. Aquino’s camp has taken advantage of this, projecting him as The Anti-GMA, and simplistically (and cynically) claiming that not being corrupt is by itself enough to qualify him for the presidency. But this half-assed approach to change will likely fail to bring long-lasting and positive renewal. It will ultimately bring us back to where we started, as shown by our experience since EDSA I. We went full circle from Marcos to Arroyo in a scant 15 years.

Meaningful change is deliberate and goal-oriented. It is driven by a clear vision of how things should and could be, not by wishful thinking and euphoria bordering on hysteria. It is guided by humility and a knowledge of one’s limitations but also a courage and steadfastness to transcend such limits. I honestly don’t see this in Noynoy.

I end on a personal note. I have been surprised by the undercurrent of nastiness in the Noynoy campaign. The level of venom aimed at those who refuse to be drawn into the cult of Noynoy is disturbing. I have been patronized and sneered at for not expressing unbridled love for Noynoy, even by people who I thought to be my friends. Among those in the Noynoy camp, I have seen various cliques and factions openly express scorn for and actively undermine each other (for example between the “political operators” and those from civil society groups, each accusing the other of incompetence and hidden agendas). These are not the kind of people we want running the country.
———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

Don’t get me wrong. I do appreciate what an amazing platform for connectivity Facebook and its ilk are. People I haven’t seen or heard from in decades are now my Facebook buddies. And I know why it’s such a hit for us Pinoys. It’s rooted deep in our national psyche, the need to be part of a community and to interact constantly.

But a good friend has observed that I can be antisocial. He may be right to some extent. I can be misanthropic. Or I may just be a very reserved person. Shy even.

I don’t chat online. There are times when I don’t even answer my email unless they’re work-related. I neglect my blog and don’t respond to comments, which I’m told a good blogger should always do. I log out of the internet for weeks at a time. Which, at this time and age, makes me a rather odd duck.

My problem is the whole idea that we seem to be expected to now establish “relationships” with everyone we come across. Not in the romantic sense but in the marketing sense. We have to sell our online and offline personas and to do this we have to practice “relationship marketing” . But like Butch, my friends are the ones I enjoy libations with, argue passionately about everything and nothing and who I may not be in touch with for months (even years) at a time but who won’t mind and will embrace me just as warmly the next time we meet. Because “ things get too busy or life yanks us in unexpected directions”. And these relationships are built over time. It’s a process that can’t be rushed, like the aging of fine wine.

Or maybe I’m only trying to justify my crabbiness. In any case, I’m not about metamorphose from a worm to a social butterfly anytime soon.

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

Cartoon from The New Yorker.
———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

Not that the Japanese are exceptional in this. The custom of falling on one’s sword dates back to ancient times. Plutarch records such a death in The Life of Brutus:

Then giving each of them his right hand, with a countenance full of pleasure, he said, that he found an infinite satisfaction in this, that none of his friends had been false to him; that as for fortune, he was angry with that only for his country’s sake; xxx and, taking hold of the hilt of his sword and directing it with both his hands, he fell upon it, and killed himself.

Thus, the suicide of former South Korean President and blogger Roh Moo Hyun, who leapt to his death from a hill behind his house was, although shocking, not totally unexpected. And perfectly understandable. He was a man of principle and was shamed that he should be under investigation for a bribery allegation involving U.S.$ 6 million. Roh’s suicide note said his health was poor and that “nothing is left in my life but to be a burden to others.” He faced death with equanimity and class, writing:

Don’t be too sad. Aren’t life and death both a piece of nature? Don’t be sorry. Don’t blame anyone. It is fate.

Nothing had yet been proven and it was likely he could have cleared himself, the money having been received by relatives and subalterns. Yet the fact that he was under suspicion caused him intolerable humiliation.

And he killed himself for a sum which is paltry by the standards of the Arroyo administration. In one deal alone for example, like the fertilizer fund scam, the Arroyo government squandered three times that amount. Yet no one shows any mortification within the Philippine government, least of all President Arroyo. It’s simply business as usual at the Palace. It’s a shame we don’t have a tradition of honorable self-destruction, one more remnant of the religious beliefs foisted on us by our colonial past . By a simple act like that of Roh, our country could be saved from further suffering and grief.

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

It’s hard to generate any sympathy for a jerk who has been gifted with so much, in the looks (obviously, as those he bedded are as comely as they come) and brains (he’s an M.D. after all) department, yet has thrown it all away for a few destructive and less-than-cheap thrills. Dr. Kho is proof that moral depravity and plain dumb-ass (those who have seen the videos know that I mean this literally) imbecility cuts across professional boundaries. Somehow this makes us lawyers feel better.

Depraved. Criminal. Swinish (“sobrang binaboy” or “excessive piggery”, as Ms. Katrina Halili so aptly puts it). There won’t be any shortage of adjectives to describe Kho’s actions. Yet it’s undeniable that Kho is sick and needs professional help from his peers. He has displayed the classic symptoms of sex addiction, and his life has become unmanageable. This shouldn’t keep him from answering for his misdeeds in the courts, before those who regulate his profession and a rightfully irate public. But before he’s strung up high on the nearest tree, he should at least be made well enough to understand the gravity of his acts. For that, there ought to be some form of intervention from those who may still care for him.

Furthermore, those leading the mob may not themselves have clean hands, as Senator Bong Revilla would be the first to admit. I suspect that the outrage exhibited by most of the men who have so righteously condemned Kho stems from the shock of self-recognition. There, but for the grace of God go (or more accurately, come) I.

And if we were to take Secretary Eduardo Ermita up on his statement that “anything that is offensive to public morals must be sanctioned” , then I suspect an overwhelming majority of our good and esteemed public officials would be in the same shoes as Kho. This is clearly, as my friend Alvin would say, a case of the anaconda calling the cobra a snake.

Neither are those groups who supposedly champion the victims’ cause themselves blameless. Gabriela, for instance, with its penchant for hitching its broad (pun intended) political agenda to any passing mare, has diluted its credibility by its shrill and simple-minded presentation of most issues. With the unfortunate result that it has been less than effective in advancing the interests of its constituents, as shown by the Subic rape case.

It’s easy to feel contempt for a pig like Kho. But in our haste to cast the first stone, we may be revealing more about ourselves than we care to admit.

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?