At Large : Moral disgust
Rina Jimenez-David
Inquirer News Service
"MORAL disgust" is how many describe their sentiments these days, a conviction that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo cheated her way to the presidency as indicated in the "Hello, Garci" tapes, and dismay, disappointment and even anger that she seems to be getting away with it.
Even as pressure builds to shame President Arroyo into voluntarily resigning, she has shown every sign of staying on, from turning the nation's attention away from the "tale of the tapes" to Charter change, from proclaiming her willingness to have her day in court through an impeachment even as her allies in Congress take every step to derail the impeachment motion.
Perhaps the President's confidence has to do with the lack of focus of all the groups and movements calling for her ouster. A motley collection of the "usual suspects" -- Joseph Estrada supporters, failed candidates, leftist groups, and liberal clergy -- joined by deserters from among her support group, including former Cabinet members and NGO sympathizers, the anti-Arroyo movement has found it difficult not just to mount united protests but even to propose a credible post-Arroyo scenario. As a friend put it: "We have no alternatives, no Plan B, no taste for the rabble-rousing opposition, no inclination to heroics, and no antidote to exhaustion."
What seems clear at this point is that doing more of the same, more of the tried and true forms of protest dating back to pre-martial law days, even, will no longer work. Some new, creative form of distilling the moral disgust in the air and giving expression to it has to be devised. As another friend put it: this new expression of public indignation "must take a different form from marching in the street or signing a petition or issuing a statement because people recoil from doing anything political when they feel particularly morally affronted."
* * *
WHATEVER "new" trigger or precipitating event emerges, it doesn't look like it will be coming from the ongoing hearings on the illegal lottery "jueteng" or the "Gloriagate" tapes. This despite the surfacing of a new witness who puts the President personally present during the distribution to Commission on Elections (Comelec) officials of bribes solicited from jueteng lords. Talk about joining the issues!
I don't usually agree with the President's political adviser Gabby Claudio, but I think what he says about Michaelangelo Zuce, a relatively minor Malacañang functionary, bears considering. How could Zuce, who worked in the office of Joey Rufino, a liaison officer for political affairs, have enjoyed such trust that he would be allowed to join the very few people at the President's personal residence in La Vista? Especially since President Arroyo not only met with Comelec officials, which would be fishy in itself, but also stood by while they received millions of pesos in bribes?
It seems particularly brazen of the President, and careless, too, which she certainly is not. Why would she need to be present at such an occasion, after all? And why hold the payoff in her family home, which would tie her to the bribery even if she weren't present?
Though the Senate is giving Dagupan Archbishop Oscar Cruz one last shot at presenting witnesses on the jueteng racket, my feeling is that the public has already turned off on the hearings by now. From what I gather, the public seems to believe there's nothing really new or spectacularly scandalous about the revelations so far, with administration supporters successfully boring holes through the more sensational allegations.
* * *
TALK about amending the Constitution for now centers on the proposed shifts in form of government: from presidential bicameral to parliamentary unicameral; and the adoption of a federal system, that is, dissipating the power of the executive at the national center by granting more decision-making power and control over local resources to state or regional governments.
But there's nothing to prevent the opening of other provisions or sections of the Charter to changes or amendments, especially if Congress simply meets as a constituent assembly. This is because the public would no longer have a chance to decide what areas they want to be amended by voting for delegates to sit in a constitutional convention, granted that all candidates would present a menu of Charter changes they would undertake.
It's possible that some new features introduced in the 1987 Constitution, such as the "people power" provisions on recall and oversight, or the more stringent requirements for the declaration of martial law, could be overturned. And certainly, we can expect debate on such controversial items as the so-called "right to life" provision granting state protection to the "unborn" or even the provision granting women and men "equality before the law."
* * *
ON THE LATTER, we need to keep a close watch on the drafting of the Iraqi constitution, which is expected to wrap up by Aug. 15. Iraqi women's groups are organizing themselves to counter attempts by religious conservatives to impose Islamic laws on the country's once-secular legal system. Some 200 women have already marched on Baghdad's streets precisely to prevent this from happening.
Iraqi women are particularly alarmed by proposals to adopt Sharia law as the civil code applied to Muslim families. Under Sharia law, for instance, a woman who files charges of rape must be able to produce a male witness in her favor, or else face the possibility of being convicted of adultery herself.
Though religious parties have tried to placate the women's fears, the women are not reassured any by the statement of one prominent cleric that while Islam respects the right of women, women must content themselves with "limited equality" under Islamic rules.
