Philippine History

I bought some new books from PCBS today and while there I bumped into a friend who writes a weekly column for a local daily. We fell into talking about theology and local politics, and soon the conversation turned to Philippine History and authors of books on Philippine History, such as Agoncillo, Constantino, Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide. I learned a few interesting things from him: he said the first mass was held not in Cebu but in Butuan. I still have to check whether what he told me is correct but, anyway, he sure whetted my appetite for Philippine History. History happens to be one of my weak points. I don’t read a lot of history (although I’ve read a good number of Christian biographies) and I think it’s high time for me to make amends for my neglect of this important subject. And so when I got home I opened my copy of Sonia Zaide’s The Philippines: A Unique Nation. And while scanning the pages I chanced upon the header on one of the pages: “From People Power to a Great Christian Revival.” It seems Zaide interprets history from an overtly Evangelical Christian perspective, and she’s not afraid to say so. Here’s a pertinent quote from page 407 of the book -

“The Lord has a special mission for the Philippines, and this is found in our country’s history. The Philippines is the bridge between the Christian West and the non-Christian nations of the East. That is why the Lord is now forming the Filipinos into strong Christians. Because He wants us to be His chosen witnesses for the other non-Christian nations towards the East.

“No other nation in the world at this time can fill this role better than the Philippines. So if the Filipinos do their part in taking the gospel of the Lordship of Jesus Christ to the other parts of the world, this will fulfill our destiny as the ‘light of Asia’.”

This is quite an interesting perspective coming from a Filipino historian. Some might be surprised how something like this could find its way into a history textbook, but it’s actually a sentiment I share. Two good friends of mine are now missionaries in Cambodia; one of them temporarily left his job at City Hall and brought his wife and two kids with him to share the gospel to the people there. As far as physical features are concerned it’s easy for them to blend in. And last I heard the kids are learning the Cambodian language faster than their parents.

The point is Zaide might be on to something here. Historically, culturally, religiously, educationally, Filipinos seem to have been providentially prepared for such a task. If we believe that God is involved in shaping our individual lives so that we can fulfill his purposes for us, surely we can believe as well that he is similarly involved in preparing and shaping the life of our nation so that we as a nation could fulfill a task which is peculiarly ours? At any rate, here’s a verse to ponder:

“For we are are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” (Eph. 2: 10)

Liberty Without Virtue

I’m presently reading a very good article by Os Guinness on Religious Liberty and the Rebuilding of the Public Philosophy, entitled, A World Safe for Diversity. I’m sorry I can’t give the link at this time; I downloaded it, printed it out and forgot what website I got it from. Anyway, here are some good quotes from the article:

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” (Benjamin Franklin)

“We have no government armed with powers capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale through a net” (John Adams)

“Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks – no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.” (James Madison)

Whatever may be the merits of shifting to a parliamentary form of government I hope we Filipinos don’t forget that no matter how good a governmental system is it won’t be a panacea for society’s ills. In the final analysis we have to reckon with ourselves – whether or not we are a virtuous, disciplined and godly people. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.”

I just discovered that Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban has an on-line book entitled Leadership by Example (sub-titled The Davide Standard). I reckon from the chapter headings (especially ch. 6, “The Death Penalty Law: The Debate Continues” and ch. 7, “Warrantless Arrests and Seizures Revisited”) that it’s bound to be an interesting read.

PP 1017 is Partly Constitutional.

In a previous post I predicted that the Supreme Court would probably declare Proclamation No. 1017 constitutional: “On its face the document appears sound and probably will survive a constitutional challenge.” It turned out I was correct – well, almost. In Randolf David, et al. v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al. (G.R. No. 171396) the Supreme Court held:

PP 1017 is CONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it constitutes a call by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence. However, the provisions of PP 1017 commanding the AFP to enforce laws not related to lawless violence, as well as decrees promulgated by the President, are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. In addition, the provision in PP 1017 declaring national emergency under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution is CONSTITUTIONAL, but such declaration does not authorize the President to take over privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest without prior legislation.

Previously, I wrote, “On my part I don’t read the constitution as requiring the president to proclaim martial law in cases of rebellion and invasion before she can call out the armed forces. The way I see it it’s optional on the part of the President to proclaim martial law in cases of rebellion and invasion. The Constitution simply says that if she thinks it necessary she can call out the armed forces in cases of lawless violence, rebellion and invasion, with or without proclaiming martial law. That’s her choice and she has a constitutional right to it.” That’s not exactly how the Supreme Court ruled but at least it did say that PP 1017 is not a declaration of martial law:

Some of the petitioners vehemently maintain that PP 1017 is actually a declaration of Martial Law.  It is no so.  What defines the character of PP 1017 are its wordings.  It is plain therein that what the President invoked was her calling-out power … Based on the above disquisition, it is clear that PP 1017 is not a declaration of Martial Law. It is merely an exercise of President Arroyo’s calling-out power for the armed forces to assist her in preventing or suppressing lawless violence.

In a TV interview I opined that if there is anything unconstitutional in PP 1017 it will have to be that part that talks about enforcing “obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me [i.e., the President] personally or upon my direction…” I thought this was too vague and could lead to abuse. It turns out my suspicions were more or less right on target. The Supreme Court ruled that -

… the assailed PP 1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants President Arroyo the authority to promulgate “decrees”. Legislative power is peculiarly within the province of the Legislature.  Section 1, Article VI categorically states that “[t]he legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.”  To be sure, neither Martial Law nor a state of rebellion nor a state of emergency can justify President Arroyo’s exercise of legislative power by issuing decrees.

Of course, PP 1017 is open to abuse by those who invoke its authority. But the fault then lies with those who seek to implement it in a way not countenanced by the words of the proclamation itself. The Supreme Court held –

Settled is the rule that courts are not at liberty to declare statutes invalid although they may be abused and misabused[135] and may afford an opportunity for abuse in the manner of application.[136]  The validity of a statute or ordinance is to be determined from its general purpose and its efficiency to accomplish the end desired, not from its effects in a particular case.[137]  PP 1017 is merely an invocation of the President’s calling-out power.  Its general purpose is to command the AFP to suppress all forms of lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.   It had accomplished the end desired which prompted President Arroyo to issue PP 1021.  But there is nothing in PP 1017 allowing the police, expressly or impliedly, to conduct illegal arrest, search or violate the citizens’ constitutional rights.

I am glad that this one is more or less behind us (although the country will be debating this for weeks until the next issue comes along, and although the decision is technically not yet final). I think the Supreme Court did a fine job balancing the interests of liberty (“without which, law becomes tyranny”) and the interests of law (“without which, liberty becomes license”). I was pleasantly surprised by the discussion in the decision of several political theorists on the power of the President in times of emergency: John Locke, Rousseau, Machiavelli, John Stuart Mill. For that alone it deserves to be printed out even if it means more than 70 pages of bond paper! Although a number of people won’t be happy with this decision, I for one found it very educational. Next week I’ll be lecturing on the powers of the president in my constitutional law class and of course PP 1017 will be the highlight. I’m looking forward to a lively discussion.

More on the Death Penalty

Over at the Philippine Inquirer Michael L. Tan wrote a very good defense of the anti-death penalty position. Click here to read it. His arguments are not new but he does score some points against the pro-death deterrence argument by pointing out that "In the Philippines, the role of the death penalty in deterring crime is probably even more insignificant, mainly because the biggest criminals know they are untouchable."

Some of his concerns however are addressed in a very lengthy paper found in a website appropriately named Pro-death Penalty.com, which covers the following topics:

A. THE RISK OF EXECUTING THE INNOCENT
B. THE INCAPACITATION AND THE DETERRENT EFFECTS
C. RACE, SENTENCING AND THE DEATH PENALTY
D. THE COST OF LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE VS THE DEATH PENALTY
E. DEATH PENALTY PROCEDURES
F. CHRISTIANITY AND THE DEATH PENALTY

The paper, however, relies on data which are applicable to the U.S. and there are many things in it which are not applicable to the Philippine setting except maybe by analogy. Those who are pro-death penalty here in the Philippines need to come up with a similar study modeled after this paper but relevant to the Philippine context to support their view. (There may already be one but I haven't seen it yet) It is the last topic – Christianity and the Death Penalty – I am most interested in. An interesting biblical/theological argument I never saw before is the following:

Christians who speak out against capital punishment in deserving cases " . . . tend to subordinate the justice of God to the love of God. . . . Peter, by cutting off Malchu’s ear,. . . was most likely trying to kill the soldier (John 18:10)", prompting " . . . Christ’s statement that those who kill by the sword are subject to die by the sword (Matthew 26:51-52)." This " implicitly recognizes the government’s right to exercise the death penalty." Dr. Carl F.H.Henry, "A Matter of Life and Death", p 52 Christianity Today, 8/4/95.

At any rate, you can read the whole paper here.

Death Penalty

The latest controversy in Philippine politics today is the death penalty – thanks to GMA's "Easter gift" of commuting around 1,200 death penalty sentences to life imprisonment. On the one hand, you can hear sighs of relief over what is perceived as a welcome and long overdue development; on the other, you can hear the cries of disbelief from the families of victims of heinous crimes. This is a highly divisive issue – both from the political and theological points of view. I'm posting here the classic biblical texts that proponents of the death penalty usually invoke:

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." (Gen 9:6)

"For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer."
(Rom 13:4)

Gen. 9:6 and Rom. 13:4 taken together may be understood as teaching that God, the giver of human life (and who therefore has the right to take it away when he pleases) has delegated to "man" (in this case, human government) the authority to take away life in appropriate cases (in cases where God's wrath – the penalty of death – is justly deserved). The sword is too striking a metaphor and that it refers to or at least includes the death penalty is difficult to miss.

Of course, on the opposite side of the fence are those who believe that whatever may be the force of these biblical texts they are nevertheless superseded by the "law of love and forgiveness". I understand these people as saying that "Yes, capital punishment is a legitimate governmental function in appropriate cases, but that is too low for a Christian. We are called to the nobler and higher task of loving and forgiving our enemies, of overcoming evil with good. Yes, 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,' is alright, but Christ superseded all that when he said, 'Love your enemies and do good.' "(Luke 6:35)

From a biblical and theological point of view, the question now is Which is Which? One factor to consider in resolving this issue is that the Apostle Paul, writing Romans 13, years after Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead, and with full awareness of the law of love and forgiveness which Christ taught, did not seem to see any conflict between this law of love and the death penalty as a legitimate governmental function to which Christians themselves should submit. It is also interesting that in the latter verses of the previous chapter (ch. 12) he makes mention of the need to leave place for God's wrath and not to avenge ourselves.

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Nevertheless, he proceeds to write Romans 13 especially verse 4 above-mentioned without consciousness of inconsistency. And the reason for this, it seems, is that in Paul's mind to "leave room for God's wrath" allows for that wrath to be executed by human government as a proper agency or instrumentality of God's wrath. In other words, the law of love and forgiveness does not deprive God of his right to show wrath. But God can choose and has in fact chosen to exercise that right through the instrumentality of human government. What is not allowed is for private individuals to take divine justice into their own hands.