|
The 2003 military occupation of Oakwood Hotel was the only
confirmed coup attempt against the Arroyo regime since
it took power in 2001. Sens. Ralph Recto and Joker
Arroyo, however, alluded, not to that one coup attempt,
but to coup “attempts” when they justified last Monday
their decision to join the Arroyo senatorial slate,
which suggested that there was more than one stab at a
coup between 2001 and today.
It’s fairly certain, however, that there were no other
attempts at a coup after Oakwood. There might have been
a coup plot in 2006, but it never went far beyond the
planning stage. It was limited to a lot of noise and
little action—although it was pretext enough for the
Arroyo regime to declare a state of national emergency
and to pretend that the Constitution did not exist.
But Recto and Arroyo were correct in their criticism of the
opposition coalition’s silence on Oakwood. UNO has even
included in its senatorial slate Navy Lt. SG. Antonio
Trillanes IV, the principal accused in the Oakwood
mutiny, which implies approval at least of Trillanes’s
Oakwood “protest.”
There may be a thousand reasons to justify the dismantling of
the Arroyo regime. Supporting a military coup that would
do so may be a tempting option, given the regime’s high
crimes and tenacious hold on power. But it’s doubtful
if what will follow will be any better.
It could be worse, not the least because the Philippine
military, by tradition, indoctrination and inclination,
is hardly a democratizing and reformist force. It’s
hardly surprising that no military putschist since the
coup attempts of the 1980s has ever proposed a sensible,
or even any, program of government beyond the usual
motherhood statements.
Recto and Arroyo were also right in pointing out that in
wanting to impeach Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the
opposition hasn’t been clear about supporting her
Constitutional successor. That would be Vice President
Noli de Castro, against whom, until she decided to run
for the Senate again, former-senator Loren Legarda had
an electoral protest alleging that de Castro cheated in
the 2004 elections.
Recto and Arroyo also said that Mrs. Arroyo had never tried
to undermine their independence despite their opposition
to the regime’s “grave blunders.” That’s something
between them and Mrs. Arroyo, of course, and we’ll have
to take their word for it. But it’s when Recto and
Arroyo declare that the economy’s looking up, and when
they chastise the opposition for supposedly ignoring the
Constitution, that they enter the realm of the
controversial.
Many economists will say that the economy’s not exactly
booming, given the worsening poverty documented by
various research groups, which have found the incidence
of hunger increasing, and incomes falling. As for the
Constitution, we all know who was the first to ignore
and undermine it.
Recto and Arroyo agree, anyway, that “the rich are getting
richer” and that whatever economic improvements are
taking place “have yet to be felt by the vast majority
of the poor.” But in the same breath they claim that
“the people are getting better off,” although they
describe the process as “little by little.” Their
conclusion: the country is moving forward, and “the
political choice in the coming election is to trip up
the country or help it along.”
Apparently, in the new Recto-Arroyo cosmos, one can only help
the country along by voting for regime candidates,
whether for the Senate or for the local elections. After
all, only by doing so can the regime “complete the work
it is doing.”
But what exactly is “the work it is doing”? Nurturing the
economy? Broadening participation? Enhancing democracy?
Defending the Constitution? Protecting human rights?
Governing efficiently and honestly? The Recto-Arroyo
statement does mention the economy and even (gasp) the
Constitution, but hardly goes beyond criticizing the
opposition for not decrying coup “attempts” and for not
supporting Noli de Castro’s succeeding Mrs. Arroyo
should she be impeached.
Glaringly absent in the Recto-Arroyo statement is any
reference to the key issue of the continuing crisis
that’s being driven by questions over Mrs. Arroyo’s
legitimacy and her consequent assault on the Bill of
Rights (ergo, the Constitution) in order to survive
politically. There is no mention either of the unabated
killing of political activists—including killings while
the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings is
in the country—that’s become national policy during her
watch.
Why this failure to even mention the issues that have made
the May elections one of the most crucial since 1986?
Never mind Ralph Recto. Some grandsons just can’t be
within spitting distance of the legacies of their
grandfathers. But for human-rights lawyer Joker Arroyo
to ignore the most brutal and most systematic violations
of human rights since Marcos as a factor in his decision
on under what banner to run—that should count among the
great mysteries of life in this, the country of our
sorrows.
Comments? teodoro@info.com.ph Other columns and
comments: www.luisteodoro.com |