Many Filipinos say what happened to Manuel Zelaya, the duly-elected President of Honduras who was ousted by the military in the early morning of June 25, could very well happen to Mrs. Gloria Arroyo. The likelihood of a similar political spasm stems from the same prognosis that both Presidents want to amend the Constitution for them to stay longer in office.
Whether the motive of President Zelaya and Mrs. Arroyo is to allow them to pursue their reforms or are just goaded by their sheer love for power is beside the point as there will always be sharp reaction to a leadership that attempts to tinker with the Constitution. This is even more evident among the vested class that treats the Constitution as sacred and immutable.
The comparison is misplaced because anybody who attempts a parallelism only exposes his ignorance of the contextual facts and issues. The Cuban ambassador to the Philippines, Jorge Rey Jimenez, while carefully not touching on our internal brouhaha of Charter change, had to painstakingly explain to the media that a referendum to extend the term of the President by amending the Constitution is part of the democratic process. He said there was nothing wrong President Zelaya’s proposal.
When the military in cahoots with the oligarchy, the clerics and in collaboration with their controlled Congress launched a coup d’ etat before the proposed referendum could be held, and before his term to which he was elected expires, the whole thing became illegal. The issue raised by those who opposed his proposal became immaterial because this has been overtaken by their illegal act of ousting the President. What is obvious is that he was dragged out of his residence and put on board a plane bound for Costa Rica against his will while he remains the legitimate President of Honduras.
Our case is different because the administration wants to amend the Constitution to possibly allow Mrs. Arroyo to hold on to power, this time as Prime Minister under a parliamentary form of government. Even if it is well within the curvature of a democratic process, objections exist, since began her career as President on the wrong foot in taking the first step to have the presidency. Instead of waiting to be elected, she conspired with the elite, the clerics, and with some-power-hungry generals to launch a coup d’ etat in 2000.
Again she used the same wrong foot by resorting to massive electoral cheating to secure her alleged victory in the 2004 presidential elections. The issue then is not that it is wrong for her to amend the Constitution, but that she and her confederates in the House of Representatives are desperately working to have her retain in power.
We can even say the proposal is wrong three times over because her stay as President is considered technically illegal as the elected President under the present Constitution is allowed to remain in office only for a period of six years, while she has already been there for close to nine years.
None of the political swindles were committed by the Honduran President that even US President Barack Obama publicly admitted that Zelaya remains the legitimate President of that country.
q q q
Our good friend and former fellow activist Julius Fortuna passed away last June 23. To many who knew him, his death was a great loss because he was one who always exerted his best to understand what others want to say. Maybe it was his way, but that unique trait he had shown was truly spelled out by the number of people who came to pay their last respects to a man who evolved from an ideologue to one who would not hesitate to cross the bridge to seek better understanding on the views of others.
I met Julius during the turbulent years before the declaration of martial law when we found ourselves belonging to the same radical organization. We had not seen each other for some time, and we accidentally met, I was promptly invited to attend his regular forum, the now popular "Kapihan sa Sulu" every Saturday. As a regular habitué, I saw in Julius the broadmindedness in easily blending and conveying his ideas to people representing the various political spectrums. This is not to say he had abandoned his idealism for a better society, a cause that cost him almost decade as a political prisoner. This is to say that he was a sensible pragmatist who could see political realism in our ethos of changing times.
It was his political flexibility where many learned to acknowledge his talent to argue with anybody on any issue with understanding. Julius can argue, but will not antagonize. He was firm in his views, but very accommodating. Most important, he was always grateful to those in the media who regularly attend his forum by inviting them to a sumptuous lunch, and surely many loved him for that.
Julius was one individual worth cultivating as a real friend, as it is from him that one learns to value gratitude. It was Julius who invited me to join the Samahang Plaridel. At first I refused telling him that I was not qualified because I never started my career as a media practitioner. Instead, he said, "I want you to join because we need you and I believe you are qualified." Indeed, that gesture was an honor, and it was that kind of trait in Julius that I learned to value my friendship with him.
(E-mail: rodkap@yahoo.com.ph)
Back to top
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
The Daily Tribune © 2006
