Living on ‘dangerous times’

LAST March 21, a day after the “useless” Senate hearing (according to Senator Bong Go) on the circumstances leading to the “extra-judicial rendition” (according to former Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea) to The Hague of former President Rodrigo Duterte last March 11, a ‘Tricom Committee’ of Congress “invited” — ‘under duress’ we might add– several ‘bloggers’ said to be identified with the former President for a hearing, ‘in aid of legislation” on ‘Fake News.’

Majority of those forced to attend the hearing, of course, are not “seasoned” journalists or members of the mainstream media but people who have been exploring and, in some instances, exploiting (a practice we also condemn) the new freedom space granted to all by the Internet or by the rise of the ‘Social Media.’

Separate from this, Patrolman Steve Francis Tallion Fontanillas, a member of the QCPD, was cashiered and is now facing the threat of ‘sedition’ and other stiff administrative charges for airing his personal sentiment on what is now clearly the illegal deportation to The Hague of FPRRD to face trial before that “corrupt” tribunal (according to US President Donald Trump) that is the International Criminal Court (ICC).

They may be separate instances but both glaringly demonstrates the poor, if not increasingly dangerous state, of our Democracy.

Article 3 (Bill of Rights) Section 4 of our Constitution is clear that: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances.”

Indeed, free expression and a free press is at the core of any State professing to adhere to the principles of Democracy and democratic rule.

They supersede, and even stand above, the people’s right to elect any candidate of their choice to any public office that is subject of an election.

I purposely avoided watching the entire House proceeding last March 21, noting that it was again dominated by the same personalities that composed the now infamous ‘Quadcomm’ and this being the case, no “resource person” can expect to be treated “fairly.”

Article 3, Section 4 of the Constitution being plain in its wording cannot result to any legislation attacking or undermining it. Thus, the usual excuse of ‘in aid of legislation’ cannot—and does not—hold water.

What, then, is that hearing all about? To show how contemptible of the Constitution and of our rights our “lawmakers” have become? You be the judge, dear readers.

In the case of Patrolman Fontanilla, while he is entitled to his own opinion, it has always been the ‘unwritten rule’ that if you want to criticize, nay condemn even, your organization, you don’t do it publicly but use the available internal mechanism. Or, better still, resign first before exposing the “dirty linen” in public. In other words, his emotion should not have gotten the better of him.

Nevertheless, his outburst captured the sentiment of the majority: What the government did to FPRRD is morally wrong, legally indefensible, and yes, unconscionable.

Whatever, the emerging reality is that much like Ukraine under the neo-Nazis and the United States under Joe Biden and the Democrats (what an irony!) the word “Democracy” is being used to camouflage the increasing attacks on our civil and political rights by the very authorities we voted to protect and uphold those rights.

When political dissent, when the voicing of opinion contrary to official narrative is being branded as ‘fake news’ or ‘seditious,’ we are living on dangerous times.