The general campaign pitch of the senatorial candidates for the May polls is decidedly poverty alleviation. Sound bytes, images and subliminal messages are directed towards 26.5% (CIA Fact book) of the Filipino nation living under the poverty line and probably, another equal percentage on its fringes. On print and broadcast, TV most prominently (one reason why political leadership would always be ruled by money), the electorate is bombarded with platforms of job generation, free education, free health care, stable prices and a host of promises dovetailed at what the Filipino poor wants to hear.
Maybe it's just me suffering from an overdose of an endless stream of campaign advertisement but I now alternately view the messages as reeking with so much condescension towards what I fear these candidates see as the poor, downtrodden electorate. Notice how the word give or its subliminal context is plastered all over the campaign : give jobs, give education, give health care, give stable prices, so on and so forth to the mendicant electorate who thrive under the Conditional Cash Transfer. You can actually feel the bias of these privileged few when they look down on you from the idiot box.
I feel they all missed the point.
Senators are not suppose to give anything. They are not suppose to give to ghost non-government organizations their hundreds of millions of Pesos of priority development fund (PDAF) or to themselves, in particular, fat bonuses from realigned maintenance and other operating expense (MOOE) funds. Senators have nothing to give, in contrast they take from the electorate burdened as it is with taxes of 47% of their income (35% Income tax + 12% Value Added Tax). Senators take from the electorate their salaries , MOOE, bonuses and PDAF.
For all their perks, senators are suppose to ensure through legislation that equality, freedom and liberty are accorded to each and every citizen irregardless of social position, ethnicity, religion or creed as demanded by the constitution to arrive at a just and humane society. So, where are those conversations?
We've all heard how the 15th congress unleashed the cyber crime prevention act effectively restricting freedom of speech, an awful law not given enough debate. There is also Republic Act 10389 an act allowing recognizance for indigents accused of crimes. Some may find this cute but think about it and it might occur that this is biased for the poor. Why only the poor, why not everyone? Take another cute law RA 10361 or the domestic workers' act presumed to protect the household help. Why the need for a special law? Senators of the 15th congress seem think there is a marginalized component of society. There should not be and if there is it's their doing. Laws are for every citizen equally applied. To paraphrase Alfredo Lim, laws are for everyone or no one at all. I hope I got that right.
For spreading equality, the 15th congress of the senate missed so much. As starter, there's the continued dominance of dynasties which suppresses an equal opportunity, political arena. Ideas have staled in the long run of dynasties because the political and legislative leadership are the 'same old, same old." Not surprisingly, most senatorial candidates agree there's nothing wrong with dynasties since they all hail from the same place.
Even the president seems not immune. Palace spokes person Edwin Lacierda was once quoted as encouraging the electorate to evaluate between good and bad dynasties which was almost funny except it hurts when I laugh. It's like saying someone's an SOB but then its alright because that someone is our SOB. Then there's the VP who actually argued for dynasties, defending its existence with credentials and clamor. When asked about Nancy's credentials, the VP responds with 'She's my daughter'. Again, it only hurts when I laugh.
Here's a news flash, the President and Vice President along with all the officials, swore to uphold the constitution of which the anti-dynasty is a provision. Do they see themselves above everybody else with a license to trample on the constitution?
How about justice, does everyone have equal access? The courts are ruled by money, there is no denying that fact. There are people languishing in jail with far more time than that decreed for their crime because of their lack of lawyers, conclusively money. I have seen people accused of shoplifting having done over 6 months with still no arraignment. Now that's justice delayed, justice denied in clear context. Was RA 10389 the answer? Of course not! The thing is that there should be a legal limited holding time by which accused should be charged and arraigned.
The courts, as these stand today, are not public areas where everyone has access. It is restricted for those with money. How else can one explain the same testimonial circumstance but differing outcome of the Vizconde Massacre and the Abadilla 5? The Philippine Airline flip-flop? And Jonas Burgos? Where is justice when lawmakers become fugitives then given merely a slap on the wrist when finally apprehended?
On May 9, we go to the polls to choose candidates to assume the current vacancies of the senate. Thirty-three candidates vie for twelve seats, six of which are incumbents. The word 'senate' comes from the Latin senex (old men) to mean the council of old men. Roman emperors enlisted retired magistrates to lend advise on political management policies. Obviously they thought the older, the wiser. Unfortunately its not always the case while the young also have nothing to offer. The senate needs 12 men to fill its vacancy who will offer a vigorous debate for equality and freedom which we do not get from the likes of Ramon Revilla, Lito Lapid and Jinggoy Estrada while mocked by the plagiarism of Tito Sotto and Pia Cayetano. None of those I heard discussed core issues of equality and freedom just the same song and dance routine.
Will Somebody please take the lead in the 16th.
No comments:
Post a Comment