Monday, February 4, 2019
"Rejoice and be glad!" - CBCP pastoral letter on government issues, 2018.
See - http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2018/07/09/FULL-TEXT-Catholic-bishops-issue-pastoral-letter-responding-to-government-issues.html#.XDalCbX6oGE.facebook
"x x x.
Filipino Catholic bishops release pastoral letter responding to gov't issues
By CNN Philippines Staff
Updated 15:14 PM PHT Mon, July 9, 2018
Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, July 9) - The Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) issued a pastoral letter on Monday, talking about a number of issues plaguing the country.
CBCP President Archbishop Romulo Valles said the letter entitled "Rejoice and be glad!" is a reminder to bishops on how to react to current issues as ordained ministers.
The pastoral letter, released at the end of a three-day plenary of bishops in Manila, comes after President Rodrigo Duterte's controversial remarks against God and the Catholic Church.
"To those in this world who boast of their own wisdom, those who arrogantly regard themselves as wise in their own estimation and the Christian faith as nonsense, those who blaspheme our God as stupid, St. Paul's words are to the point: "For the stupidity of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength." (1 Cor 1:25) And to those who ridicule our faith, we say with St. Paul, "God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong, and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something, so that no human being might boast before God."(1 Cor 1:27-29)," the letter read.
Read the full text below:
Rejoice and be glad!
CBCP Pastoral Exhortation
“Blessed are the peacemakers, they shall be called sons and daughters of God.”(Mt 5:9)
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, do we not all aspire for the grace to be called “sons and daughters of God?” If we do so, then we must constantly strive to be peacemakers in these troubled times in our country. And that means to always strive to bring love where there is hatred, pardon where there is injury, faith where there is doubt, hope where there’s despair, light where there is darkness, and joy where there is sadness (from the prayer for peace attributed to St. Francis of Assisi).
PEACE: OUR COMMON VOCATION AND MISSION
Our enemies in this world are not fellow human beings, not “flesh and blood” (Eph 6:12). We do not fight our battles with guns and bullets. We do not seek protection from those who might wish to harm us by wearing bullet-proof vests, because the battles that we fight are spiritual. In these times of darkness, when there’s so much hatred and violence, when murder has become an almost daily occurrence, when people have gotten so used to exchanging insults and hurting words in the social media, we admonish the faithful to remain steadfast in our common vocation and mission to actively work for peace.
But make no mistake about it; even the master said, “Not as the world gives peace do I give you peace.” (Jn 14:27). His peace is never the peace of compromise or capitulation to evil; it is also not about the absence of conflict and turmoil. Was he not rejected by his own townsfolk in Nazareth? (Lk 4:16-30) Was he not called crazy by his own relatives? (Mk 3:20-22). Was he not called a “prince of demons”? (Mk 3:22-30). Was he not called a drunkard and a lover of tax collectors and sinners? (Mt 11:19)
Did he not show us how to deal with adversities when he slept in the boat, or walked on water even in the midst of a storm? (Mk 4:35-40; Mk 6:45-52) But like the apostles, we are often so easily overcome by fear and panic. Even when we’re already making baby steps on troubled waters like St. Peter, we find ourselves sinking because of our “little faith” (Mt14:31). There is nothing that can calm us down in these turbulent times except the quiet recognition of him who assured us of his abiding presence — “Be not afraid; it is I!” (Mt 14:27)
THE COST OF WITNESSING TO CHRIST
What is new about priests being murdered for witnessing to Christ? What is new about modern prophets being silenced by the treacherous bullets of assassins? What is new about servant leaders who are maligned because they have carried out their duties as shepherds configured to the person of their Chief Shepherd? Have you forgotten that “the blood of martyrs is the seed of Christians”? (Tertullian) It is what has kept the Church alive after two thousand years. Be not afraid! Did not our master say, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather be afraid of the one who can destroy both body and soul into Gehenna” (Mt 10:28)?
We are no strangers to ridicule and persecution. What we are going through is no different from what the Psalmist describes in Psalm 64: “They sharpen their tongues like swords; they aim bitter words like arrows to shoot at the innocent from ambush, shooting suddenly and recklessly.” But what does the Lord tell his disciples when they are persecuted or humiliated for his sake? He tells them to “rejoice and be glad” (Mat 5:12). These are the very words with which Pope Francis opens his apostolic exhortation “Gaudete et Exsultate”. They are the Lord’s words to those persecuted and humiliated for his sake. With the intention of calling us all to strive for a life of holiness, Pope Francis says the Lord does not want us “to settle for a bland and mediocre existence” (GE 1). How have we been taught to deal with persecution? Listen to what the apostle, St Paul, says, “When we are insulted, we respond with a blessing; when we are persecuted, we bear it patiently; when slandered, we respond gently. We have become the world’s refuse, the scum of all; that is the present state of affairs” (1 Cor 4:12-13).
And how are we to deal with divisions among ourselves? How are we to deal with fellow “Christians” who see nothing wrong about the killings, who just laugh when our God is blasphemed, and who take part in passing on fake news? Did not the Lord himself warn us that part of the exigencies of working for peace is having to go through the crucible of conflicts? (Lk 12:51-53) There will always be those among us who profess the faith in Christ but are so easily seduced by the empty promises of Satan. Remember him who once sold the master for 30 pieces of silver because he had allowed himself to be mastered by Satan? St. Paul is right in saying, “…there have to be divisions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may become known.” (ESV 1 Cor 11:19)
THE SUFFERINGS OF THE POOR
Our sufferings as Church leaders are nothing compared to the sufferings of the poor in our country. Do we not hear the cry of poor slum-dwellers being jailed for “loitering”? Have they forgotten that for the homeless urban poor — the little alleys between their flimsy homes also serve as kitchens, bathrooms, recreation spaces, and playgrounds for their children? Have they forgotten that they live in tiny dwellings that are razed quickly to the ground when fire strikes, because they do not have proper roads? Do we not feel the sufferings of drug addicts who are labelled as “non-humans”, and are stigmatized as criminals when their names end up in the dreaded “drug watch lists”? Yes, we are aware of the sufferings of those who have been victimized by substance abusers, but can we not see them also as sick people who are struggling with a disease? Should we not rather look at them also as victims who are crying out for help? Are we to remain as bystanders when we hear of people being killed in cold blood by ruthless murderers who dispose of human lives like trash? Do we not realize that for every drug suspect killed, there is a widowed wife and there are orphaned children left behind — who could hardly even afford a decent burial for their loved ones? Do we not care when poor people’s homes are searched without warrants, or when drug suspects are arrested without warrants, or detained without charges?
Do we not care about the misery of people charged of drug-related offenses and packed like sardines in extremely congested jails? Can we even bear the thought of seeing most of them languishing in jail, knowing that rehabilitation is what many of them need? Do we not hear of the sufferings of indigenous peoples who are displaced from their ancestral lands in order to give way to mining companies and dams? And how do we feel about communities that are forced to leave their homes for fear of being caught in the crossfire of conflicts between government troops and insurgents? How are we affected when our own troops die because of unceasing hostilities that have not been adequately addressed through peaceful dialogue? We have a saying in Tagalog, “Ang sakit ng kalingkingan ay ramdam ng buong katawan.” (The pain of one part of the body is felt by the whole body.) Alas, this is not always true! There is no way we can feel each other’s pains when some parts of the body are numbed by sheer indifference.
To those in this world who boast of their own wisdom, those who arrogantly regard themselves as wise in their own estimation and the Christian faith as nonsense, those who blaspheme our God as stupid, St. Paul’s words are to the point: “For the stupidity of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.” (1 Cor 1:25) And to those who ridicule our faith, we say with St. Paul, “God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong, and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something, so that no human being might boast before God.”(1 Cor 1:27-29).
THE WAY OF JESUS
We wish to remind those who have been angered by the insulting statements of people in authority; remember what the Lord had taught his disciples. He said, “But to you who hear I say… bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well…” (Lk 6:27-29). Vengeance is never the way of Christ. It is not the way of Jesus to return evil for evil; no, we can conquer evil only with good (Rom 12:21). Up to the last moment of his breath, he had nothing but words of mercy towards his tormentors, “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they do” (Lk 23:34).
There are those who accuse us of getting involved in political moves to destabilize the government. Nothing can be farthest from the truth. Our concern is never the establishment of any earthly kingdoms. Worldly kingdoms come and go. We work only for God’s kingdom which is beyond this world — so that we can start learning to live life “on earth as it is in heaven” (Mt 6:10). For the times in our history when we fell into the temptation of working for political power, we can only bow in shame and say, never again! We do not proclaim a false image of God, such as one who is just watching from heaven like a ruthless deity who threatens us of damnation in hell all the time. Ours is the God revealed to us in Jesus Christ — the God who saves, a God “rich in mercy and compassion”, a God involved in our history, a God who — for love of us — emptied himself totally, and “became poor, so that by his poverty we might become rich” (2 Cor 8:9).
CHURCH AND GOVERNMENT
The Church respects the political authority, especially of democratically-elected government officials, as long as they do not contradict the basic spiritual and moral principles we hold dear, such as respect for the sacredness of life, the integrity of creation, and the inherent dignity of the human person. We are not political leaders, and certainly not political opponents of government. The Church has, throughout history, coexisted with countless forms of government. The Church has always been and will always be a partner of government (especially in the LGUs and barangays) in countless endeavours for the common good, especially in addressing the needs of the most disadvantaged sectors of society. Sometimes we qualify the collaboration as “critical”, mainly to distinguish our differences in terms of ultimate goals, even as we partner in some shared endeavours. Needless to say, on some specific issues, collaboration might not be possible because of our spiritual and moral beliefs, which we persistently propose, but never impose on the unwilling. In such instances, we can only invoke our right to conscientious objection. We do recognise the constitutional provision of the separation of church and state, mainly in the sense of distinction of roles in society. When we speak out on certain issues, it is always from the perspective of faith and morals, especially the principles of social justice, never with any political or ideological agenda in mind.
CHURCH OF SINNERS, CALLED TO HOLINESS
We admit humbly that we are a Church made of members who are “wretched but chosen” (Miserando atque Eligendo, Pope Francis’ episcopal motto). We are a Church of sinners called to conversion and holiness at the same time. We bow in shame when we hear of abuses being committed by some of our fellow Church leaders — especially those ordained to “act in the person of Christ”. We hold ourselves accountable for their actions, and accept our duty to correct them — as duly mandated by our own higher authorities in the universal Church. We humbly admit that we have many weaknesses and shortcomings, human as we are. We have no reason to justify our weaknesses on the basis of our participation in the human condition, because we profess faith in the God who embraced the human condition, precisely to set a new template of humanity in his son Jesus Christ. We draw a lot of strength from St. Paul, who desperately begged the Lord to remove his weakness but only got these words as assurance, “My grace is enough for you; for in weakness power reaches perfection. It is when I am weak that I am strong” (2 Cor 12:9).
CALL TO PRAYER AND FASTING
On July 16, 2018 on the feast of the Blessed Mother of Mt. Carmel, the mountain associated with the bold challenge of the prophet Elijah, let us spend a day of prayer and penance, invoking God’s mercy and justice on those who have blasphemed God’s Holy Name, those who slander and bear false witness, and those who commit murder or justify murder as a means for fighting criminality in our country. We invite you to join us, your bishops, in three days of fasting, prayer and almsgiving from July 17 to 19, 2018.
We commend you, our dear people of God, to the maternal care of the woman to whom Jesus entrusted his “Beloved Disciple” and said, “Behold your son!” (Jn 19:26) We, for our part, behold her — our mother in faith — with filial love. Mary, mother of the Church, be near to us especially when we tend to despair and run out of the wine of faith, hope and charity (Jn 2:1-11). Teach us to do only what your Son asks of us. And when we lose heart in the face of persecution, may we stand by you at the foot of the cross and regain our strength from the blood and water that flowed from the wounded side of your Beloved Son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. AMEN.
For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines,
Most Rev. Romulo Valles, DD
Archbishop of Davao
President, CBCP
July 9, 2018
x x x."
Party-list system - "Given this dominance, amending the Party-List Law is, I believe, no longer viable. The dominant solons will not allow it. Only a constitutional revision via a constitutional convention, not via a constituent assembly of Congress, may be the answer: Either abolish the party-list, which in the first place was just an experiment that has gone berserk, or institute the necessary reforms."
See - https://opinion.inquirer.net/117395/abolish-or-reform-party-list
"x x x.
Abolish or reform party-list
Utterly bereft of local constitutional ancestry, the Filipino party-list was, from inception, beset by two tough questions: (1) Who can qualify for and hold party-list seats, and (2) How many should the seats be? Last Sunday, I tackled question 1; now, I will take up question 2.
To determine the winners in a party-list election, Veterans Federation Party vs Comelec (Oct. 6, 2000), the earliest jurisprudence on the subject via a 12-3 vote, mandated “four inviolable parameters.” The first was extracted from the Constitution and the other three from the Party-List Law (RA 7941), as follows:
“First, the twenty percent allocation — the combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the total membership of the House of Representatives, including those elected under the party-list;
“Second, the two percent threshold — only those parties garnering a minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are ‘qualified’ to have a seat in the House of Representatives;
“Third, the three seat limit — each qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three seats, that is, one ‘qualifying’ and two additional seats; (and)
“Fourth, proportional representation — the additional seats which a party is entitled to shall be computed ‘in proportion to their total number of votes.’”
I will no longer detail the formula generated by the Court from these parameters. Suffice it to say that it resulted in the election of only a few candidates, below the 20-percent allocation, which the Court ruled to be merely a ceiling, not a mandatory number to attain.
Because of this paucity of winners, the Veterans formula was criticized by the losers, conveniently forgetting that the Veterans decision itself acknowledged the inevitability of distortions, but only because the formula (christened by the legal community as the “Panganiban formula” as I was the writer of the decision) merely reflected the distortions in the Party-list Law. That was why Veterans, anticipating these criticisms, suggested a revision of the law to cure the distortions.
The Court refused to nullify any provision of the Party-list Law. After all, the Charter gave Congress wide discretion to shape the Filipino party-list system. Warts and all, the Panganiban formula was unanimously reiterated in Partido ng Manggagawa vs Comelec (March 15, 2006) and Cibac vs Comelec (April 13, 2007).
However, on April 21, 2009 (after I had retired), the Court issued Banat vs Comelec, which modified Veterans by awarding seats to those garnering less than 2 percent of the votes. To do this, it voided the second parameter, saying that the 20-percent allocation would never be reached if the 2-percent threshold were maintained. Yet, it retained the third parameter that limited the topnotchers to three seats.
As a consequence, the Court declared 55 party-list winners instead of only 22 if the Veterans formula were used. Thus, Buhay Party which garnered 1,169,243 votes (7.33 percent of the total) was granted only three seats, while Cocofed which obtained a measly 155,920 votes (or .98 percent of the total) was given one seat. Under this ruling, a party that gets only 10,000 votes can win. Preposterous, but certainly possible! Obviously, the end result was still distorted, as the new Banat formula failed to follow the fourth parameter—proportional representation.
Because the floodgates to 20 percent of the House membership were opened by the scuttling of the 2-percent threshold, and because the “marginalized and underrepresented” doctrine was overturned per last Sunday’s column, the rich, the powerful and the dynasties now dominate our mongrelized party-list system, to the chagrin of the poor and the powerless.
Given this dominance, amending the Party-List Law is, I believe, no longer viable. The dominant solons will not allow it. Only a constitutional revision via a constitutional convention, not via a constituent assembly of Congress, may be the answer: Either abolish the party-list, which in the first place was just an experiment that has gone berserk, or institute the necessary reforms.
Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com
x x x."
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/117395/abolish-or-reform-party-list#ixzz5eUvCzKcj
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
For if the bishops do not speak, who would?
See - http://www.cbcpnews.com/cbcpnews/?p=88222&fbclid=IwAR17DHZfErR1FWvsTCYgfkiikXmwrznJRYLf2gzca56DEUWhFtR_eX3NfBs
"x x x.
Must the Church speak on socio-political issues?
By Msgr. Lope C Robredillo, SThD
ON the November 8, 2016 decision of the Supreme Court to allow the remains of Ferdinand Marcos to be interred at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani, Veritas846.ph published a quote from Abp Socrates Villegas, CBCP President: “I am very sad. The burial is an insult to the EDSA spirit. It mocks our fight to restore democracy. I am puzzled and hurt and in great grief. It calls for greater courage to make the full truth of the dictatorship known.” Comments were mixed. But typical of those who were against the Archbishop’s statement was a netizen of the social media who goes by the name of Salty Nooblet Cyrus. Far from arguing on the merits of the quotation, she/he zeroed in on authority and right to make such a statement on a political issue, opining that the separation of Church and State must be observed, and that Church authorities must confine themselves to the spiritual realm.
Contra Arguments on Church’s Socio-Political Involvement
Must Church leaders not speak on social and political issues? It might be of help to take a look at the most common objections.
Separation of Church and State. The first one, the separation of Church and State, is probably one of the least understood principle in Church-State relations. Quite often, ordinary people take it to mean simply that the Church should not interfere in the affairs of the State, just as the State should not meddle in the concerns of the Church. Thus, when some Church officials denounce government policies, some immediately call the denunciation a violation of the separation of Church and State. If anything, they expect Church officials to be silent when it comes to politics, social and political policies and programs.
This is far removed from its meaning. The principle, enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art II, Sec 6, finds its explication on the bill of rights in Art III, Sec 5, stating that no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting its free exercise. It guarantees free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. Philippine jurisprudence has long interpreted the principle along this line, and has never construed it to signify suppression of public voice of the Church.
Which things are Caesar’s? Oftentimes, people object to the Church’s interference in political and societal affairs on the ground that Jesus himself clearly forbade it. Tacked to that claim is the saying, “Render to Caesar the thing that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17). This has been interpreted in various ways by exegetes, ranging from those who take it as counselling obedience to political authorities to those who see it as an advise on non-payment of taxes (see my book, Jesusological Foundations for a Theology of Social Transformation). But for many defenders of the status quo, the interpretation of S. Dummellow is representative: Jesus so sympathized with the Roman imperialism that loyalty and submission to civil power are a duty binding in conscience.
Today, no exegete worth his salt would take it that way. Practitioners of historical-critical method have shown that, interpreted in its historical context, the emphasis of the saying is on the second segment. Writes Richard Horsley in his book, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: The key in the saying “must lie in what is Caesar’s and what is God’s… Jesus would appear to be consistent with later rabbinic teaching in this regard… that everything is God’s.” Dorothy Day is quoted to have said that if we render to God everything that belongs to God, there would be nothing left to Caesar. Clearly, the passage cannot be taken as a proof-text for the separation of Church and State. At least, no respectable exegete, either Catholic or Protestant, would invoke the saying to silence the public voice of the Church.
Religion as a Private Affair. A third objection to the Church’s public voice in matters of social and political issues is the idea that religion should be confined to individual morality, that it should only be about private faith and personal piety, church worship and affairs of the sacristy. For some, especially those influenced by Lutheran tradition, the Church should be concerned only with individual’s reconciliation with God, it has to prioritize salvation of the soul, and only discuss the Bible, not social and political questions. In effect, the Church cannot apply any religious teaching on political and social life, much less in a critical way. It cannot challenge the existing public order.
But that is a caricature of religion. At the heart of Christian religion is the Gospel that has to be announced as good news, but as Gustavo Gutierrez argues in his A Theology of Liberation, “the annunciation of the Gospel, precisely insofar as it is a message of total love, has an inescapable political dimension, because it is addressed to people who live within a fabric of social relationships, which, in our case, keep them in a subhuman condition.” The Gospel has always a direct consequence for social and political life. For this reason, religion cannot be confined to purely private affair nor entirely to other-worldly concerns.
The Church and Socio-Political Issues of the Day
That brings us to the role of the Church in social and political affairs. For, if the Gospel has an immediate effect on the life of society, the Church, being herald of the Gospel, cannot ignore the socio-political issues of the day. Its involvement, as noted in the CBCP Pastoral Exhortation on Philippine Politics (41-42), can be looked at from different angles.
The Gospel and Politics. In the Bible, gospel refers first of all to the Kingdom of God, which summarizes the mission of Jesus. According to the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:10), it means doing God’s will on earth; God’s will has to be done not only in the religious, social and economic life of the people, but also in their political life, because politics is an activity in the world. The kingdom-values of peace, justice, freedom, mercy and reconciliation that the prophets spoke of have to be made visible, if not prevail, in all these aspects of life. But if Jesus has commanded his disciples to bring the gospel to all the world, there is no legitimate reason why it cannot proclaim it in the field of social and political life, since there is no aspect of human life that cannot be a field of evangelization. Politics has to be transformed and nurtured in the light of the Gospel.
The Mission of the Church and Politics. Probably no one disputes that the mission of the Church is one of salvation. But what is salvation? It is regrettable that the term is often taken to mean salvation of the soul, because a correct understanding of the word must take into account the whole person; what is saved is not only the soul but also the body, and all the dimensions of the human person as a being in the world: spiritual and material, eternal and temporal. That is why, the Second Vatican Council, in Apostolicam Actuositatem, says: “Christ’s redemptive work, while of itself directed toward the salvation of all, involves the renewal of the temporal order. Hence, the mission of the Church is not only to bring to everyone the message of grace of Christ, but also to penetrate and perfect the temporal sphere with the spirit of the Gospel.” Since politics is part of the temporal order, the Church cannot therefore exempt politics in the work of salvation.
The Moral Dimension of Politics. All human activity, as it comes from the intellect and will of man, has always a religious and moral dimension. The reason for this is that any human action may lead either to grace or to sin. Since politics, the art of governance and public service, is a human activity, it always has religious and moral dimension. There is always a moral aspect in the administration of public resources, in the governance of people, and in the dispensation of justice. And inasmuch as the religious and moral dimension of life is the competence of the Church, it cannot therefore overlook politics in the fulfillment of its mission to preach the Gospel.
The CBCP’s Intervention on Social and Political Issues
Papal Social Encyclicals. It is on account of these various dimensions in relation to politics that the Church has been engaged in the social and political life of the people. But contrary to what many people may think, there is nothing new in this. The Church has been long involved in contemporary issues of society. In its current form, its intervention finds expression in the series of social encyclicals, beginning with Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum in 1891 on labor and capital and on the condition of workers, then with Pius XI’s Quadragesimo Anno in 1931 on various themes treated in Rerum Novarum, including dignity of labor, rights of workers and the principle of subsidiarity.
John XXIII took up the themes of private property and social justice in his 1961 Mater et Magistra, while Paul VI’s 1961 Populorum Progressio proposed a pluralistic approach to economic problems. John Paul II’s Laborem Exercens in 1981, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis in 1987 and Centissimus Annus in 1991 treat of such social and political topics as work as both humanizing and dehumanizing, authentic human development, critique of capitalism and communism, economic development as enslavement, and option for the poor. Benedict XVI took up various themes in Populorum Progressio, and spoke of layers of development, including inequality, respect for life and use of technology in Caritas in Veritate in 2009, and Francis describes our world as a common home that we must care for in Laudato Si in 2015.
The CBCP Speaks. Unknown to some many Catholics, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and its predecessor, Catholic Welfare Organization (CWO) have issued more than two hundred pastoral letters and statements, many of which were meant to guide the faithful in relation to the relevant social and political issues of the day. In general, one might classify these latter into three: (1) those that pertain to internal concerns that have to be clarified or restated or explained in the light of new realities in the country in relation to the work of CBCP Commissions. Examples: “Religious Instruction in Public Schools: An Opportunity and a Challenge” in 1987; “To Form Filipino Christians Mature in their Faith” in 1990; “Save the Family and Live” in 1993. (2) Those that respond to moral and political issues of the day are so numerous, among them being: “CBCP Post Election Statement” in 1986 on the conduction of the February 7 Elections; “Thou Shalt Not Steal” in 1989; “Guiding Principles of the CBCP on Population Control in 1990; “CBCP Statement on the Debt Problem” in 1990; “On Renewing the Political Order” in 1991; “On the Non-Restoration of the Death Penalty” in 1992; “Pastoral Letter on Human Rights” in 1998; “Shepherding and Prophesying in Hope,” in 2006; and “I will turn their mourning into Joy” in 2016. (3) Those that expound its social and political teaching are best represented in “Pastoral Exhortation on Philippine Politics” in 1997; “Catechism on Church and Politics” in 1998; “Pastoral Exhortation on the Philippine Economy” in 1998; “Pastoral Exhortation on Philippine Culture: in 1999.
Principles that Apply in Social and Political Life
All these exhortations, statements and letters show that the Philippine Hierarchy is in touch with the life the people and concerned with the common good. Numerous though they may be, yet they all flow from principles that the Catholic Church have underscored as a result of its reflection on the Word of God in relation to the socio-economic and political realities all through the centuries. Which is why, though one may not be able to read all these documents, it would not be difficult for him to understand the position of the Church if they are read in relation to the principles on which they are based. After all, they embody the CBCP application of these principles to the issues that confront the Church and the Filipinos. Admittedly, the principles are many, but the following have been emphasized in the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP-II) 1991 in its Acts and Decrees (292-329), in the CBCP Pastoral Exhortation on Philippine Politics (43) 1997, in the CBCP Pastoral Exhortation on Philippine Economy (37-85) 1998, and, more recently, in CBCP Pastoral Letter on Social Concerns (18-20) 2006:
Human Dignity and Solidarity. The human person is made in the image of God, and is called to share life with him. This dignity is the basis and source of all the rights and duties (social, economic, political) of the human person. All must promote that dignity and denounce whatever oppresses it. The equal dignity of all brings them into mutual solidarity, that is to say, solidarity is built up on the recognition of the dignity of all. Extrajudicial killings and death penalty trample on that dignity. Because of solidarity, one cannot exploit other people or treat them as less than human.
Universal Purpose of Earthly Goods and Limits to Private Property. According to John Paul II in his Solicitudo Rei Socialis, one of the greatest injustices in the world is the poor distribution of the goods and services originally intended for all. Thus, the use and ownership of the goods of land must be diffused for the benefit of all, not confined to a few families. That is why there is a limit to private property; this has to be subordinated to the universal destination of goods. Crony capitalism is wrong.
Preferential Option for the Poor. Being an option of Jesus himself who became poor and had compassion for them, this is an obligatory, essential choice. As PCP II puts it, “the common good dictates that more attention should be given to the less fortunate members of society.” It behooves us to be more concerned with those who are at the margins of human, social and political life: the unemployed, poor fisher folk and farmers, street children, slum dwellers, tribal Filipinos, victims of typhoon, drought and earthquake, etc.
Social Justice and Love. True development is not possible without social justice and love. It demands, among other things, consideration for the common good, and equitable distribution of wealth among different regions and groups. It rejects concentration of wealth, plunder of government coffers, graft and corruption, among others. But since justice is the minimum of love, it has to have its inner fullness in love. Love creates solidarity and brotherhood and therefore can help overcome hostilities that divide ethnic, religious and political groups.
Peace and Active Non-Violence. Armed struggle as a method to create transformation of society finds no justification in the teaching of Jesus. As John Paul said in his visit to the Philippines, “the road to total liberation is not the way of violence, class struggle or hate; it is the way of love, brotherhood and peaceful solidarity.” The adage of Jacques Mallet du Pan is lapidary: “Revolution devours its children.”
Integrity of Creation. No authentic development is possible without a passionate care for the earth and the environment. Natural resources are limited and cannot be exploited as though they were inexhaustible, as their destruction can be irreparable and irreversible. That they bring enormous sum to the government coffers should not made to justify and trivialize ecological disasters that can result from human greed.
Priority of Labor over Capital, Workers’ Right over Profit. John Paul II enunciates this principle in his encyclical Laborem Exercens: “We must first of all recall a principle that has always been taught by the Church: the principle of the priority of labor over capital. This principle directly concerns the process of production: in this process labor is always a primary efficient cause, while capital, the whole collection of means of production, remains a mere instrument or instrumental cause” (12). Since capital is an instrument, it must serve the common good. For this reason, profit cannot be the main motive of any economic enterprise; it is more intended to serve the community of persons, including the dignity and right of workers.
These are but few of the many principles that are fleshed out in the encyclicals of the Popes and in the pastoral letters, statements and exhortations of the CBCP, but sufficient enough to show that when the Church speaks on social and economic issues, it is not its intention to subvert the State. On the contrary, precisely because both Church and State have the same constituents, its intervention should be seen as a service exercised for the good of all. With more reason therefore should the State guarantee the rights of the Church, but also protect and promote its mission. If anything, both of them should rather engage in dialogue, while maintaining and respecting their proper competence.
Unfortunate Development in Philippine Christianity
Cultic Catholicism. It is to be deplored that, in the history of Philippine Christianity, these social teachings are almost unknown at the level of the lay people. No wonder, Philippine Catholicism is still largely cultic with little bearing on socio-political and economic realities. It is not an exaggeration to say that the number of those who would attend a lecture by the Cardinal on the defense of human dignity would pale in comparison with those who would make it to the procession of the carroza of the Poon Nazareno.
Decalogue-Confined Morality. A number of reasons could be adduced, but part of them is that, for centuries, our teaching on morality has been largely confined to the memorization of the Ten Commandments. Moreover, their social implications are almost never expounded in the pulpit. While it is true that priests do study the social encyclicals in the seminary at the college level, yet they are not part of the curriculum in the general course of theology. As they become priests, very few ever recall, still less study, the social principles. It is not surprising that in the sacrament of reconciliation, social sins are almost never heard of in the confessional.
Absence of Social Principles in Catechism. But the absence of social principles in the preaching and teaching of the ordinary parish priest is matched by their absence in catechetical booklets published by dioceses. It seems that in many parts of the country, not much improvement has been done on the content on the Baltimore Catechism or in the Doctrina Cristiana.
Dearth of References to CBCP’s Wisdom and Scholarship in CFC. In addition, it is even a bit ironic that the Catechism for Fiipino Catholics (CFC) issued by the Bishops of the Philippines, while containing social principles (1160-1195), did not draw much from their wisdom and scholarship that one encounters in their pastoral statements, letters and exhortations. Of the more than 200 of them, only the 1975 Pastoral Letter on the Mahal na Birhen is cited as source from the Philippine Hierarchy. The CFC would have been more Filipino had it cited many times from the documents of the Philippine Hierarchy. That way, the social and political teachings of the CBCP would have been widely disseminated. One has to congratulate the effort of the CBCP Media Office is putting the collection of these documents in the internet. For it is also important that the bishops’ teaching is accessible in the social media.
For if the bishops do not speak, who would?
Conclusion
It is fitting, before closing this piece, to recall the memorable words of a German at the time of the Nazis. Martin Niemöller, a Protestant pastor who became so outspoken in his public criticism of Adolf Hitler–easily remembered for his murder of more than 6 million Jews–that he had to spend 7 years in the Nazi concentration camps. Probably because it had been delivered in several fora, it has several versions, but the meat of the quote is that, for him, the leaders of the Protestant Churches have been complicit in the transmogrification of Hitler in their silence, especially in the persecution, imprisonment and pogrom of millions of people by the Nazi.
Goes the quotable quote: “First, they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Of course, not to keep one’s mouth shut is dangerous. It is no joke to be courageous especially if one knows that, in a few moments, he will be six feet below the ground. In the social media, a critique of the establishment will certainly result in a tsunami of trolls posting responses that are, among others, replete with half-truths, inflammatory, ad hominem, off topic, annoying, and full of hatred. But in the real world, being liquidated is not a remote possibility. Jesus himself pointed out: “They will hand you over to persecution and they will kill you. You will be hated by nations because of my name. And many will be led into sin, they will betray and hate one another” (Matt 24:9-10).
x x x."
Double jeopardy and corruption cases - "Ever since the 1904 Kepner decision, Philippine courts and lawyers have blindly followed the rule that an acquittal bars any appeal because of double jeopardy. This is analogous to our propensity to sing “Frosty the Snowman” during Christmas even if it’s entirely inappropriate to our local conditions. It’s about time our Supreme Court revisited our blind allegiance to a foreign concept that has become an instrument of travesty in our corruption-plagued country."
See - https://opinion.inquirer.net/119019/the-travesty-of-double-jeopardy?fbclid=IwAR1LmGjhXafIy-MilMAA2KEfo0x_Pppar0NPbwbiyP_VjYAXIHT26jOD8eg
"x x x.
The travesty of double jeopardy
By: Joel Ruiz Butuyan - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:08 AM January 21, 2019
The rule has always struck me as unfair and unjust. When the accused wins in a criminal case, the “not guilty” decision is final and cannot be appealed. But when the accused loses, the “guilty” verdict can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
In November 2018, the Sandiganbayan found Imelda Marcos guilty of graft and sentenced her to 77 years of imprisonment. Imelda was allowed to appeal in the Supreme Court. In December 2018, the Sandiganbayan found former senator Bong Revilla not guilty of plunder. His acquittal was deemed final and appeal was not allowed.
The reason for the conflicting availability and unavailability of appeal in the two cases is because the Philippines subscribes to the American concept of double jeopardy.
The unfairness of the American concept of double jeopardy unravels when we consider the fact that when a case begins in our Sandiganbayan, the accused only has to succeed in one out of four chances in order to be acquitted: two chances when the Sandiganbayan and the Supreme Court render their decisions, and two additional chances when motions for reconsideration are filed in each court. In contrast, the “People of the Philippines,” the injured party in all criminal cases, have to win in all four in order to clinch a final conviction.
The prohibition against double jeopardy is intended to prevent the government from persecuting a citizen with two or more cases even if only one crime was committed.
In its purest form, double jeopardy only contemplates a situation where the acquittal is made by the highest court. An acquittal by a lower court will not trigger the application of double jeopardy, because the decision can still be appealed. A case that starts in the trial court and ends on appeal in the Supreme Court is considered a single continuous proceeding.
This pure kind of double jeopardy is the rule followed in Japan, Canada, Germany and other countries where “not guilty” decisions by lower courts are appealable to a higher court.
When our country was under Spanish rule, a “not guilty” judgment could be appealed to the Supreme Court. But, under American rule, an expanded concept of double jeopardy was adopted in our country, where an acquittal by a lower court is considered a first jeopardy that bars the filing of an appeal. An appeal is considered a second trial that amounts to a double jeopardy. This American brand of double jeopardy is the concept that was applied in the Revilla case.
The concept is observed in America because its criminal cases undergo a jury trial decided by 12 citizens, and the jury verdict is considered a first jeopardy. Appeal is prohibited because the appeal is decided by a judge, and such proceedings are deemed a second trial.
The imposition of the US concept of double jeopardy in the Philippines came by way of a dubious court decision involving an American, Thomas Kepner, who was a practicing lawyer in Manila in the early 1900s. Kepner was charged with stealing the funds of his client. He was acquitted by the trial court, but the Philippine Supreme Court reversed the decision by convicting him on appeal. The conviction was appealed to the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC which, in turn, reversed the conviction by reasoning out that the trial court’s acquittal barred any appeal under the American concept of double jeopardy. Kepner was acquitted not because he did not steal his client’s money, but because of sheer technicality.
Reading the decision in Kepner vs US (195 US 100 [1904]), one gets the impression that it was a hometown decision made by the US Supreme Court in order to save a US citizen. It is a poorly reasoned out decision justifying the imposition of the American concept of double jeopardy in the Philippines even if we do not have a jury trial. A law journal article, “Trial by Jury and ‘Double Jeopardy’ in the Philippines,” written in 1904 by Lebbeus R. Wilfley, presents superior arguments on why the American concept of double jeopardy is inapplicable in the Philippines.
Ever since the 1904 Kepner decision, Philippine courts and lawyers have blindly followed the rule that an acquittal bars any appeal because of double jeopardy. This is analogous to our propensity to sing “Frosty the Snowman” during Christmas even if it’s entirely inappropriate to our local conditions.
It’s about time our Supreme Court revisited our blind allegiance to a foreign concept that has become an instrument of travesty in our corruption-plagued country.
Comments to fleamarketofideas@gmail.com
x x x."
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/119019/the-travesty-of-double-jeopardy#ixzz5eUt2B5O1
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
Pastoral Exhortation on Philippine Politics - CBCP, 1997 [a refresher]
See - http://www.cbcpnews.com/cbcpnews/?p=18780
"x x x.
Pastoral Exhortation on Philippine Politics
Pope John Paul II has spoken of a new springtime of Christian life which will occur in the third millennium if we Christians become docile to the action of the Holy Spirit (TMA, no. 18). Looking ahead to the 2000th anniversary of our Lord’s birth–the Great Jubilee–he calls for conversion, for renewal in the Gospel, for all of us. It is his prayer that God’s abundant grace will be poured out on the world, come the Great Jubilee, and so he asks that we prepare ourselves for the hoped-for outpouring of His salvific love.
To help us on the way of conversion and renewal, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) have decided to issue each year, starting this year, a special full-length pastoral letter dealing with an aspect of Philippine life which in their view urgently needs change and renewal according to the Gospel.
This year the CBCP chose to dwell on the way we conduct politics in our country.
Since 1945, when the CBCP itself started functioning as a Conference, more than half of its pastoral letters and statements have dealt with political questions (see PL). In 1991, the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP-II) devoted a good amount of time and space in its final document to the discussion of the role of the Church in politics (see PCP-II, par. 330-53). Why has the Church been unusually pro-active in addressing the subject of politics since the end of World War II and especially since the Martial Law years and the restoration of our democracry in 1986?
There is one main reason: Philippine politics–the way it is practiced–has been most hurtful of us as a people. It is possibly the biggest bane in our life as a nation and the most pernicious obstacle to our achieving of full human development.
But why is this so?
A. THE POLITICAL SCENE
Politics is–or ought to be–the art of government and public service. But sadly, in the Philippines, it has degenerated into an arena where the interests of the powerful and rich few are pitted against those of the weak and poor many. It interferes with the administration of justice and the equal application of the law, heavily weighted as it most patently is on the side of the politically connected. Political debts are paid with appointments to high offices of those to whom elected officials are indebted, blind loyalty counting as the most important criterion in the selection of public officials–even for government agencies mandated to be independent by the Constitution. The bureaucracy is packed with political proteges, many of whom do nothing except to collect their salaries on the middle and end of each month. Thus the well-intentioned among career officials and employees in government become demoralized early or withdraw into silence or resign altogether. And those who opt to continue despite disillusionment are only too often harassed or eventually coopted into the system.
The constitutional principles of separation of powers and of checks and balances among the three departments of government are, on the one hand, abused to create deadlock for political mileage; and, on the other hand, conveniently set aside on occasion for reciprocal advantage. Thus, for example, to entrench themselves in office or to promote their political future, those in the Executive Department cooperate with Congress in padding the government budget with all kinds of pork barrel items–the Countrywide Development Funds, for example, congressional insertions, the special funds in the public works bills–for the disposition of politicians and the discretionary funds of the President. On top of these, the resources or facilities of specialized or autonomous organizations where there is little or no public accountability–such as the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Organization (PCSO), the Bases Conversion and Development Agency (BCDA) or sequestered companies–are made to be easily accessible for political ends. The system is shot through and through with opportunities for corruption, influence-peddling and the indiscriminate use of public funds for partisan or personal purposes.
When it comes to elections, the electoral process has been systematically subverted with increasingly sophisticated methods of tilting the playing field or committing fraud with the result that elections are in danger of losing their credibility as a reliable means for effecting change. The machinery for cheating is planned well in advance starting with the appointment of loyal lieutenants to sensitive agencies and positions that have to do with elections the audit of government funds or the enforcement of the Ethics Law. This is combined with an elaborate propaganda machine, including government-controlled media, the purpose of which is to destroy the reputation of critics and political opponents. The is also to manipulate public perceptions of government performance or to simply promote the interests of those in power and of their political proteges.
People have become so cynical of government, of Congress and of the electoral process itself, that often they lose sight of the relevance of their vote to their life or future and sell it for momentary financial gain. Thus, despite the pleas of the Church and other responsible groups, election after election, for citizens to be vigilant fiscalizers of government expenditures, many have become indifferent to corruption or themselves want to have “a piece of the action.” Despite too the guidelines regularly issued for the principled choice of candidates, many an undeserving man or woman still, just as regularly, gets voted into office.
If we are what we are today–a country with a very great number of poor and powerless people–one reason is the way we have allowed politics to be debased and prostituted to the low level it is in now. What we have said so far above about politics in our country does not by any means exhaust all we can say about it. We need to have a closer look then at our political culture in order to be able to do something constructive with it by way of the renewal and conversion we seek in preparation for the Great Jubilee.
B. OUR POLITICAL CULTURE
Let us begin with a typical politician’s concept of public office. And even as we speak here of “a typical politician”, we should soberly ask ourselves if the ideas and values, motives and acts, that we attribute to him may not be, if we are honest with ourselves, not too different from our own. . .
Our Constitution describes public office as a public trust meant for the good of civil society at large. Yet many a politician looks at it as a means of enrichment and a source of influence and power for self- and family-enlargement. It hence easily becomes considered and actually treated as some sort of private property to be passed on from one generation to another in the manner of a feudal title–the perpetuation of power that is at the base of so-called “family dynasties.” In this manner no distinction is made between public funds and private money.
What accounts for this sad state of things, for the degeneration unto evil, if we may put it as starkly as we can, rather than the transformation unto good of a person who is interested in a political career? What kind of political system have we created where base power and greed, not lofty principles of self-sacrificing service, are all too often the operative norms of conduct of public officials? For some of the answers, it would be of help to scrutinize a little more intensely one aspect of our politics: the election process. We choose to focus on it if only for the fact that it is at election time that the worst flaws of our political system and culture glaringly show themselves in their most degrading forms.
Pre-Election Day Activities . In the campaign period, the first focus of attention is on getting oneself chosen as the candidate of a party. Very early on, a candidate seeking support from the “kingmakers” is advised that he must learn to deal with “political reality” and he is supposed to do this by adopting the traditional method of political horsetrading, of promising patronage to financial supporters, of buying the loyalty of local traders. Soon enough he becomes adept in the ways of self-serving opportunism and he looks for a party that can help him fulfill his ambitions without regard to ideology and platform. Thus it is commonplace to see or hear of disappointed candidates switching party affiliations or founding their own parties. There is no difficulty whatsoever for an office-aspirant to be sworn into one party after another, no real stigma being attached to “turn-coatism”.
Prospective candidates make sure they get plenty of public exposure. To have this they cultivate media people assiduously and resort to bribing journalists to make sure they land in the news. At this stage they already incur huge expenses even as they breed corruption in the media. In turn those already in government who become afflicted with the election bug use public funds to finance “public service” messages or institutional ads that trumpet their accomplishments. With the use of government facilities, public money and the bureaucracy itself, they also jump the gun on election campaigning by organizing “inspection trips” to the most far-flung areas–with media people in tow. One cannot but wonder at the degree of moral erosion candidates must already be suffering at this point in their career.
When convention time comes, delegates are “wined, dined and womened”–as the gross but only too accurate expression cynically puts it–in order to win their votes. Here at the convention level alone, election spending gets even more heavy. If candidates spend enormous amounts of money freely in the election campaign period, everybody knows they do so in the certainty that they will be able to recoup every single item of expense and more when they assume office; and that if they eventually manage by whatever devious means to become themselves “kingpins” in their own right, they will be more than compensated for by national candidates who need the support of their political machinery.
The campaign period turns the Philippine scene into a mad circus, a vast entertainment plaza. Candidates will, during this period, do whatever their audience bids them to do–in sharp contrast to their deafness to the same people’s cries for attention once they are in office. They will dance, clown, kick-box, sing, use gutter language–anything to sell themselves and heighten “name recall.” In short, they do everything except educate the electorate on issues. They hire expensive advertizing agencies to polish up their image, often without regard to the truth, and to produce sound-bites and one-liners that will go over well in political rallies and quick interviews on radio and television. All of which only serve to worsen our personality-oriented brand of politics.
People take advantage of the campaign period to ask donations for every conceivable “project” from the candidates who are pressured to give under pain of losing valuable votes. This in turn forces candidates to solicit or accept contributions from vested interests who expect a return after the elections. The same goes with the party in power: It misuses government funds and other resources for electioneering purposes. When later those guilty become vulnerable to prosecution, they whitewash investigations with the help of proteges previously deployed in strategic agencies, even go to the extent of legislating amendments to “decriminalize” their violations.
“Dirty tricks, black propaganda, mudslinging”–anything to weaken or destroy the opposition –these are liberally resorted to. In short, the laws of ordinary morality are suspended during the campaign period in favor of office seekers and their supporters.
Election Day Activities . Winning at any cost and by any means–this has become the paramount principle governing candidates and parties in their election bid. This translates on election day itself into vote-buying, the use of “flying voters”, the intimidation of voters for the opposition, violence, even murder; and, for turning already cast votes in one’s favor, into bribery of election officials, deliberate miscounting of votes, tampering with ballots and election results. The genius and imagination required for cheating are truly stupendous and are exercised to the full–one would only wish they were used for more noble purposes than achieving undeserved victories for undeserving candidates.
While election day violence has considerably diminished, there are still many places where voters are scared off by threats of violence, where voters’ lists and even voting paraphernalia are purposely made unavailable in the precincts. Even in areas where the polls seem to be peaceful, there often is a strong undercurrent of tension because of a pervasive sense among the people that if candidates and their followers–and election officials themselves–are not watched closely, something not quite above board is going to happen. The monitoring by citizens’ groups of election day activities thus becomes a necessity, even if at times highly hazardous.
Except at the barangay level, it is not unusual for election results–even for local contests–not to be known at the end of election day. The slow tabulation of final results is one clear evil of our electoral process that somehow to date continues to be unaccepting of corrective measures.
The Post-Election Period . Confusion is the order of the day in many a community. And it has to be with the final canvassing of election results and the proclamation of winners, as has already been said, taking an unduly long time to happen. Every loser cries “foul!”, declares himself cheated, and election results are not accepted. The COMELEC takes its own sweet time deciding on election protests so that when initial verdicts are finally overturned, cheating anomalies corrected, those belatedly declared winners are barely able to assume their seats before the new election takes place.
What follows is the whole tissue of evils in our way of conducting politics that we started detailing in the earlier parts of this letter. Thus election winners, once in, use their office for gain and the shoring up of their power. Paying political debts, recouping election expenses, making fat profits for themselves–these cannot be done without resorting to all kinds of corrupt practices. “Kick-backs” (amounting sometimes to as much as 40% of the cost of a project), rigged contract biddings for public constructions, padding of expense accounts and payrolls, nepotism, the misuse of pork barrel funds, influence peddling–all kinds of other unimaginable malpractices which often go undetected and unpunished–are spawned and proliferate egregiously.
We spoke above of the whole election process taking on the trappings of a mega-entertainment circus for the public. Yet even while it dazzles and titillates, it already starts producing the tragic fruits that make our country one of the worst in the world in terms of skewed income distribution and among the most corrupt–these two facts are unfortunately intimately related like night to day.
The worst part of the bad scene we have been looking at is that we, the people, even if cynically, seem to accept them as inevitable and ordinary modes of proceeding of elected officials. And we have to ask what we asked above, namely, if what we described as the typical politician’s mindset is not perchance–deep down– somehow ours too.
We reiterate what we have already noted about the place of faith in our political culture: It is systematically excluded. The prime values of our faith–charity, justice, honesty, truth–these are of little or no consequence at all when it come to our practice of politics in or out of election time. True, religion is made use of: Candidates pay ostentatious courtesy calls on Churchmen; political conventions and other official gatherings are incomplete without prayers of invocation. But these are more instances of religion being used for political purposes than of religion influencing politics.
But why should this be so in a nation where the vast majority of the people are Catholic and Christian? Our faith in God has played a key role in major events of our history–even in a decidely political matter like the People Power Revolution of EDSA. Yet politics as a whole has been, strangely, largely impervious to the Gospel. Our political culture denies, to our shame, our proud claim to the name Christian.
C. SIGNS OF HOPE
While the foregoing is an unflattering description of the dominant character of our politics, and it seems unrelievedly black, still, there have been shining moments in our political life that give us reason to hope–and the motivation to work even harder together–for the renewal of our life as Christians and as Filipinos for the creation of a new political order.
We look at our history and we note that the Philippine electorate have more frequently removed rather than retained administration candidates and have had their judgment respected by losing candidates. We saw in the 1978 elections during Martial Law how people took the risk of speaking out with a noise barrage against the excesses and abuses of the regime.
In 1984 and 1986, volunteer citizen groups in massive numbers, unmindful of danger to themselves, courageously safeguarded the ballot against a seemingly invincible government machinery bent on thwarting the people’s will. At EDSA, in the storied People Power Revolution, ordinary citizens succesfully ended an entrenched authoritarian regime and restored lost democratic freedoms in a non-violent rebellion that has had repercussions all over the world for people seeking an end to oppressive governments.
We experienced the peaceful transfer of power in 1992, the first in 27 years, because of the example of a president who chose to step down graciously from power and because of the unprecedented cooperation in the conduct of the election between a revitalized COMELEC and its deputies on the one hand, and on the other, citizens’ arms like NGOs (non-government organizations) and POs (people’s organizations), Church groups and the media.
We have seen, in the aftermath of the 1995 elections and allegations of dagdag-bawas , members of the Board of Canvassers of a province (Bataan) publicly attesting through affidavits to the fraudulent acts of election officials. We have also seen the examples of (a) lowly bureaucrats in the Health Department exposing the corruption of an appointee to the Cabinet and helping put pressure on the President to finally withdraw his nomination; (b) senior COMELEC officials risking retaliation by making public inefficiencies and irregularities in their offices; (c) government officials responsibly discharging their duties by calling attention to environmental degradation in our midst; and (d) a presidential commission braving the ire of Congress by releasing for the information of the public their analysis of how the people’s money is wasted and pocketed by elected officials.
Some voting patterns of recent elections also give us a glimpse of what is possible: people beginning to vote more intelligently and not allowing themselves to be discouraged even when those they thought worthy turn out to be otherwise; voters choosing non-politicians over “traditional” ones, electing younger and presumably more idealistic candidates over those with money; or going for candidates of known probity and good performance instead of those supported by the usual power brokers. Many new and young faces are entering politics at the barangay and local levels and winning over very wealthy opponents and members of political clans whose heavy election spending for once is rendered futile.
We cannot discount or ignore these and many other positive developments in the nation’s political life, few and far between though they may be in the face of the many negative facts we saw above. It is all the more reason then why we must treasure them and hold them up as examples to be emulated and replicated again and again, why we must engage ourselves totally against the forces that stand in the way of reform and systemic change, why we must encourage and support one another in what should be a common and concerted striving to create a less hurtful and more humane political order.
The urgent need then is for us as Christians and as Church to evangelize politics, to become involved in politics in the way of the Gospel.
D. GOD’S CALL TO MISSION IN POLITICS
Any serious believer in God cannot allow the state of our our national politics as we have been speaking of above to persist. And in fact there is a duty for the Christian Catholic to transform politics by the Gospel. The Church, God’s people, must evangelize politics. God’s call to the Church is to preach the integral Gospel, the Gospel with all its social dimensions. The Gospel must influence every phase of life, every stratum of society, and “restore all things under Christ” (Eph. 1:10).
Strangely, there are not a few people, even within the Church, who do not believe that to renew politics is part of the Church’s mission. When Church officials praise government policies, government officials welcome such support warmly and are only too happy. But when Church officials criticise and denounce government policies, the same people immediately cry out: “Violation of the separation of Church and State! Church meddling in politics! Let the Church stick to religion!” They cite the words of Christ: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mt. 22:21). They say that the Church should have nothing to do with politics because Christ said to Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this earth!” (Jn. 18:36). They therefore conclude that the Church should not say anything about politics and politicians.
How wrongly they interpret Scriptures and the doctrine of separation of Church and State! Quite unjustly they selectively level this charge of interference in politics against the Catholic Church, even while some other sects may be loudly intervening in the political process especially during elections.
E. THE BASIS OF THE CHURCH’S MISSION IN POLITICS
Politics Has a Religious and Moral Dimension–this is the general principle we start with. Every informed Catholic should be aware of this simple incontrovertible truth: Our Catholic faith is concerned with the religious and moral dimension of life; but every human activity that flows from the normal processes of intellect and will has a religious and moral dimension, since it may either lead to grace or to sin. Or, as we said in the beginning, it may hurt or benefit people, it may upbuild or destroy them. Being a human activity politics has, therefore, a religious and moral dimension which our Catholic faith simply cannot ignore.
There are at least five bases for the Church’s mission which explicitate the above general principle.
The Gospel and the Kingdom of God Call the Church to Political Involvement. Christian Scripture scholars universally recognize the fact that at the center of Jesus’s mission was his proclaiming of the Kingdom of God, the Reign of God. The very first words of Jesus in the Gospel of St. Mark proclaim: “The Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the Gospel!” (Mk. 1:15) To face the reality of the Kingdom requires a renewal of life in accordance with the Gospel. We must not only pray, “Your kingdom come” (Mt. 6:10). We must also act to help bring it about: by renewing our lives, by defending and promoting Kingdom values, especially justice, peace, truth and love, freedom, mercy and reconciliation. To promote the values of the Reign of God is to do God’s will.
And God’s will must be done in all areas of human activity especially, in our social context, in the sphere of politics where we see the values of the kingdom are surely missing. When Jesus said, “Proclaim the Gospel to all creation” (Mk. 16:15), it was never his will to exclude politics. We have to proclaim the Gospel in the field of politics. We have to evangelize and renew it. The Church would be abandoning her mission if she fails to imbue politics with the light of the Gospel and the Reign of God.
The Church’s Mission of Integral Salvation Involves the Temporal Sphere. Undeniably, the Church’s mission is one of salvation. Unfortunately, many people understand salvation as solely pertaining to the soul. They therefore should wonder what the resurrection of the body has to do with salvation. Again the simple truth is that salvation has to do not only with the soul but with the total reality of the human person, soul and body, spiritual and material, eternal and temporal. This is why Jesus not only forgave sins, he also liberated people from physical sickness. This is also one basis for believing in the resurrection of the dead. Salvation has, therefore, to do not only with the after-life but also with liberation in this life, even if only initially and partially. Thus Jesus could say to Zaccheus: “Today salvation has come to this house” (Lk. 19:9). For this reason the Church has always taught what Vatican II declared: “Christ’s redemptive work, while of itself directed toward the salvation of all, involves the renewal of the whole temporal order. Hence, the mission of the Church is not only to bring to everyone the message of grace of Christ, but also to penetrate and perfect the temporal sphere with the spirit of the Gospel” (AA, 15)
Moreover, salvation is concerned not only with the individual but also with the community, for personal salvation depends on God’s grace acting not only directly on an individual but also through a community. This is a necessary and unavoidable implication of the believing community as the Body of Christ, “a holy nation.” We therefore believe that the Church is God’s sign and instrument of salvation. As a consequence, the Church has to proclaim the gospel of salvation to the political community. If only for the fact that politics has such a decisive influence on the total good of human beings.
Salvation is from Personal and Social Sin, Including Sin in the Political Sphere. The Church’s role in politics is also better understood when we consider that sin can take root in political activities. For sin is not only personal but social as well (see CFC, 1166-71). Sin is, indeed, found first of all in the human heart. But sin also extends its influence through situations and “structures of sin”, such as the kind of “dirty politics” described earlier–a politics as the popular saying goes, of “guns, goons and gold,” a politics of deceit and dishonesty, of unprincipled compromise, convenience and expediency, a politics of greed. It seems almost impossible to change such established ways of politicking in our county, so tragically and deeply has sin embedded itself in them. For the Church, therefore, to be an authentic sign and instrument of integral salvation, it has to work to vanquish sin in the political order too (cf. SRS, 36-38; also RP, 16).
The Church has an Option for the Poor in the Field of Politics. We have seen how political forces in our society are heavily tilted against the poor. As economic power is in the hands of the elite, so is economic power. To help correct this imbalance “those who have less in life should have more in law.” But sadly many laws and policies in our country favor the rich and the powerful to the detriment of the poor. When the moment of truth comes, those who hold the reins of political and economic power look exclusively to their own interests. Examples abound but we cite just these few: the watering down of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, the growing number of exemptions from the Program, the primacy given to big business over the small farmer, the maintenance of family political dynasties that lord it over the poor. Pro-poor many politicians are definitely not despite their protestations. Thus the Church’s mission to renew and transform our political institutions and activities: Unless the Church pursues this mission, politics will continue to militate against the poor.
The clear teaching and example of Christ is for every Christian believer to be pro-poor and for the Church to have an option for the poor (PCP-II, 312-14; see CFC, 1187-89). To realize this Gospel imperative of option for the poor, the Church must labor to try evangelizing and transforming our country’s politics, its institutions, relationships, values and behavior so that politics will work preferentially for the poor.
The Way of the Church is the Human Person Who is Affected by Politics. Indeed, politics can make or unmake the human person. It can lead the human person to the common good or it can dehumanize him by entrapping him in sinful political structures. But the mission of salvation urges the Church to collaborate with others in the development of the whole human being and of all human beings. This is why Pope John Paul II points out in his first encyclical letter, Redemptor Hominis, that the concrete human being living in history is the “way for the Church” (RH, 14; also CA, 53-54). The Church cannot ignore the forces that influence the person for good or ill–and politics is such a force. Were the Church to do so, she would be betraying her own mission on behalf of the human person.The above considerations ground the Church’s involvement in politics. Flowing from the Gospel, they are simple basic truths of our Catholic faith. When the Church denounces political attitudes, behavior or structures that are counter to the Gospel and to the Reign of God and militate against the integral salvation of the human person, especially of the poor, why would some, even well educated Catholics, condemn the Church for “political interference”? And why is it that no similar outcry is heard when the Church supports or praises government initiatives? To support is not interference while to denounce is? A very strange logic, indeed! We can only conclude that the basic reason is a poor understanding of the Church’s mission.
F. MORAL AND RELIGIOUS TRUTHS GUIDING POLITICS
If the Church does intervene in politics on the moral and religious bases presented above, it exercises this right and duty in various ways, above all by teaching moral and religious truths that should guide and transform politics according to the Gospel. The Scriptures, the moral and social teachings of the Church supply us with these valuable principles (see CFC, 1162-63, 1193).
Human Dignity and Solidarity–a First Principle of Politics. The first principle is human dignity and solidarity. Human dignity flows from the fundamental reality that the human person, male and female, is created unto the image of God (Gen. 1:27) and is called to share eternal life with God. In Christian belief, the fact that Jesus Christ is God-made-Man to redeem the human being from slavery to sin is an integral dimension of human dignity. This is why the Church’s “contribution to the political order is precisely her vision of the dignity of the person revealed in all its fullness in the mystery of the Incarnate Word” (CA, 47).
Politics must respect and promote human dignity and the fundamental human rights that flow from such dignity. When politicians exploit their fellow citizens and deny their will in electoral processes through fraud and violence, when they promote their own vested interests through any means, fair or foul, because of greed for power or possessions at the expense of others, they thereby brazenly dismiss the human dignity of their fellow human beings.
The equal dignity of all human beings bring them into mutual solidarity. By solidarity they are brought together not through superficial human sentiments or vague feelings of the unity of humankind but through active bonds of mutual respect, love, and service. Solidarity is a “firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good, i.e., to the good of all and of each individual because we are really responsible for all” (SRS, 38). Solidarity is destroyed by the selfish competition and greedy ambitioning for power that characterizes our political culture. Is this not happening even today because of the ill-advised and divisive move to extend terms of political office by changing the Constitution? The common good is invoked for such a move. This would perhaps be a bit credible were the politicians behind such a move known to be great champions of the common good rather than officials perceived popularly as trapos–the very kind of politicians from whose clutches the enlightened citizenry has been trying to liberate the nation.
The Common Good–the Goal of Political Activity. It is a cardinal teaching of the Church that the political community exists for the common good. This common good embraces “the good of all and of each individual” (SRS, 38), and is “the sum total of all those conditions of social life which enables individuals, families, and organizations to achieve complete and efficacious fulfillment” (GS, 74). Political activity then should be directed precisely not at the triumph of the interests of an individual, a family, a social class, or a political party, but at the attainment of the universal of all good. Unfortunately in the political history of our country, rare have been the times when the common good has been foremost as the actual goal of political parties. Indeed, in politics the common good is tragically uncommon, power and profit for self and family being the dominant ends of political engagement.
Authority and Power–A Divine Trust for Service. It must likewise be emphasized that all authority and power emanate from God. This is the clear teaching of Scriptures: “There is no authority except from God” (Rom. 13:1). And God gives authority only in trust. As the steward of this trust, the office holder is beholden to God and is responsible to God to whom an account must be given for his fulfilment of it. Authority is not for personal aggrandizement or domination. It is given for service (see Mk. 10:45) so that the person in authority can help others grow in dignity and unity (2 Cor. 10:8). To use one’s office and its power only to serve one’s own interests is to contradict the very nature and purpose of authority and also betray the people who rightly expect to be served. Officials who do not serve do not deserve to hold authority.
When legitimately constituted authority is exercised within the limits of its competence and in accord with the moral law, it must be respected and obeyed. But when it is used contrary to the moral law, the will of God is violated and authority would loses its right to be obeyed. Clearly, no citizen is obliged to obey a command to do what is morally wrong. In fact, all citizens are obliged to resist the wrong use of authority and to declare: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Vatican II reiterates this scriptural teaching: “It is legitimate for them (citizens) to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against abuses of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the law of the Gospel” (GS, 74). This is the principle that impelled the Filipino people to achieve the peaceful 1986 EDSA Revolution.
Between the Political Community and the Church–Mutual Collaboration. Further even though the Kingdom of God cannot be equated with material progress and well being, the mission of the Church and the mission of the political community to promote the common good partially coincide. It is therefore to the interest of both Church and political community that people live harmoniously and work together for total progress. There are human needs that the political community can best serve and there are human needs that transcend temporal well-being which only the Church can meet. Mutual collaboration is therefore necessary so that the integral development of the whole integral human person and of all persons in society is realized.
But the collaboration of the Church is given through critical discernment. The higher law of the Gospel and the Kingdom of God remains the fundamental norm of the Church’s collaboration. By reason of this norm the Church cannot be identified with any political community, political party or ideology. Nor can the Church canonize any one form of political regime. “The choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the decisions of citizens” (GS, 74), guided by the principle presented above. But clearly the Church cannot accept a political regime that is contrary to the Gospel. Moreover, the Church “cannot encourage the formation of narrow ruling groups which usurp the power of the State for individual interests or for ideological ends” (CA, 46).
G. THE SPECIFIC MISSION OF THE CHURCH IN POLITICS
In the light of the above, what then is the specific mission of the Church in the political order? The answer lies in the insight of the 1971 Synod of Bishops on Justice in the World: “Action on behalf of justice and participation in the transformation of the world fully appears to us as a constitutive dimension of the preaching of the Gospel”. From this insight flow a number of important corollaries.
1 The Task of Integral Development–Using Politics as a Means. As part of its God-given mission, the Church has the right and duty to work for total human development, freedom and justice, respect for human rights and peace. The notion of integral human development would in fact include all the rest, since such a development is the authentic realization of all the fundamental rightful aspirations, material and spiritual, of the human person and of all persons. Such human development would also require the “creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility” (CA, 46). Precisely because of this mission, the Church has also the right and duty to teach and intervene in the political order, to participate in the common effort to make electoral processes truly democratic and fair, and so to renew the political order. Politics must become an effective means for integral development for all rather than a tool for the advancement of a privileged few.
2. The Mission of the Laity. Direct participation in the political order is the special responsibility of the laity in the Church. It is their specific task to renew the temporal order according to Gospel principles and values. On the other hand, it is the specific task of the hierarchy to teach authoritatively what the Church believes or holds concerning the political order.
Vatican II states: “The Church praises and esteems those who devote themselves to the public good for the service of all and take upon themselves the burdens of public office” (GS, 75). It also adds this encouragement: “Those with talent for the difficult and noble art of politics, or whose talents in this matter can be developed, should prepare themselves for it, and forgetting their own convenience and material interests, they should engage in political activity” (Ibid.).
It is along these same lines that PCP-II states: “In the Philippines today, given the general perception that politics has become an obstacle to integral development, the urgent necessity is for the lay faithful to participate more actively, with singular competence and integrity, in political affairs” (PCP-II, 348). PCP-II strongly urged that competent and conscientious persons of integrity should become political candidates. And the laity must “help form the civic conscience of the voting population and work to explicitly promote the election of leaders of true integrity to public office” (PCP-II, Art. 8, #1).
PCP-II underlined the following truths to guide the participation of Catholics in political life:
a) That the basic standard for participation be the pursuit of the common good;
b) That participation be characterized by a defense and promotion of justice;
c) That participation be inspired and guided by the spirit of service;
d) That it be imbued with a love of preference for the poor; and
e) That empowering people be carried out as a process and as a goal of political activity (PCP-II, 351).
We draw conclusions from the above for Catholic/politicians: they are to decide and act in public life according to the principles of Catholic faith and morality; they should not separate their religion from the exercise of their public office; and while respecting the religious freedom of others, they must not be afraid to act in public life in accordance with their faith and in true witnessing to the Gospel.
3. Plurality of Options in Political Life. We must also be aware that in the light of the Gospel and consistent with the Gospel, there are many political options open to Catholics (GS, 43). The Gospel does not prescribe only one way of being political nor only one way of political governing whether monarchical, presidential, parliamentary, or whatever. Justice, peace and integral development can be pursued through many political ways. Hence there can be no one political party nor one political program that can exclusively claim the name Catholic. That is why there is normally no such thing as “the Catholic vote.” Nor can particular Catholic groups present their candidates as the Church’s candidates. The members of the hierarchy simply set guidelines to help the laity vote wisely. Under normal circumstances, they do not endorse any particular candidate or party but leave the laity to vote according to their enlightened and formed consciences.
Given a plurality of possible options consistent with the Gospel, freedom of choice has to be a right we must especially value in a democracy. A particular political option becomes obligatory to Catholics only when it is clearly the only one demanded by the Gospel, even more so when it is clarified and taught authoritatively by the magisterium.
4. Partisanship in Politics. It is precisely because of the possibility of plural options in politics that Church people who hold positions of leadership in the Church do not ordinarily engage in what is called “partisan politics.” Church leaders represent the entire community which they head or lead and for them to publicly and officially, as it were, push for one option over others when these are equally compatible with the Gospel and hence moral would be tantamount to claiming theirs is the only option in the Gospel to take and the people should follow their lead. This would be disastrous for the unity of the community. Where this kind of politics is concerned, the freedom of choice that we noted above must be part of our values should by all means be the guiding principle–most especially from the pulpit.
Above we referred to what PCP-II says about the laity’s responsibility to “work to explicitly promote the election of leaders of true integrity to public office.” This is not at all a call to form a “Catholic Party” or to have a slate of “Catholic Candidates” that must be supported by all but an encouragement for all to be more discerning in their choice among candidates for office and to work actively for their election. It is a call for political partisanship, yes, but for partisanship that must be exercised “cleanly”–which is to say, in a way that is the direct opposite of all that we mean by the term “dirty politics”. And this includes not using the Church for grossly partisan ends. This is what it is to concretely and practically evangelize politics.
H. PASTORAL ACTION TO TRANSFORM POLITICS
How do we go about changing the way politics is done in the Philippines so that, instead of being a stumbling block, it positively contributes to integral development, including the spiritual growth, of our people? How renew politics so that it becomes a channel for our people’s well being and growth in the life of grace? How ensure that the truths about faith and politics we have presented above do not remain unattainable ideals but become reality?
1. Catechesis and Political Education. The most basic work that has to be done is catechesis on politics or Christian education in politics. At present there is a tragic dichotomy between our faith-life as a people and our political culture. This dichotomy prevents our faith from having a say in our political activities. As a result our political culture is characterized by deception, dishonesty, fraud, violence, corruption, pay-offs, and patronage. Yet most of the participants in the political process call themselves Christians. Worse, politicians take advantage of their Christianity to promote their interests, as when they are photographed in churches before election time or act as sponsors in baptisms and weddings in order to widen their circle of supporters.
But catechesis on politics cannot have any lasting effect if done only on the occasion of elections. It should be done as part and parcel of regular catechesis in the family, in schools, in Basic Ecclesial Communities, covenant communities of lay people, religious organizations –“in season, out of season,” or as the PPC-RV slogan has it, “panghabang panahon”. Through catechesis on politics, people should be led to see the vital link between their life of faith and their political activity. They should be taught how to evaluate their options in politics to see whether or not they are in accord with the Gospel and the teachings of the Church. Catechesis should enable them to express their faith and be guided by their faith in their politics.
2. Guidelines on Choosing Political Officials. We have seen how many voters are influenced in choosing certain candidates not out of conscience but because of family relationships. We also know that the popularity of a candidate (often in another field of work such as sports, TV and movies) or the prospects of political and economic rewards, money and gifts–and a wrong sense of utang na loob–are strong factors in people’s voting behavior. Competence, honesty, personal integrity and an acceptable program of government are not primary considerations. This is why in their campaigns politicians cater to what the voters want in terms of entertainment and gifts of cash or kind.
Political education includes increased awareness of guidelines to help people make the right choices, based on a properly formed conscience, in the election of candidates. This is the reason why, as we adverted to in the beginning, in the 50 years of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, the Philippine Bishops have been providing such guidelines almost as a matter course everytime national elections come. Church instrumentalities at the national level, such as the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPC-RV) and NASSA-VOTE CARE, have also disseminated similar guidelines. We urge everyone to be more aware of the guidelines, reflect on them, discuss them with others, and seriously follow them on the basis of their faith commitment, their religious and moral sense, in judging the qualities or competences of candidates for office.
3. Preparation for Political Leadership. There is at present no program through which persons of integrity and political knowledge can be prepared to participate in the noble but difficult art of politics. The Federation of Asian Bishops Conferences have more than once called for such a preparation in the light of the Asian political situation (see 1986 Tokyo and 1990 Bandung FABC final statements). Such an agenda is especially imperative in the Philippine situation.Possible political leaders should be schooled in the principles and practice of doing politics in a Christian way, in accord with the Gospels, the values of the Kingdom of God, the moral teachings of the Church, especially its social teachings. An implication of PCP-II’s stand urging persons in responsible positions to promote actively the election of worthy candidates is the necessity of preparing these candidates for public office. If economic managers are schooled in their field, political leaders should also be formed so that they may discharge the burdens of public office with competence and integrity.
4. Conversion to New Values. The most basic pastoral action needed is conversion to new values. This should be the aim of catechesis on politics. There will be no radical change in our political situation unless we all undergo a change of heart–conversion, therefore–in our priorities, in our values. In our society a high premium is put on power and money. Compromises are made, truth is subverted, principles are abandoned, elections are rigged, frauds are perpetrated, politicians perpetuate themselves in power, their families are placed in positions of authority, “options are kept open”–simply because of power and money, the prime values of our present political culture. That is why financial supporters invest tremendous amounts of money on candidates and the candidates themselves spend so much to be elected–not because of what they vaguely invoke as “the people’s will” or “the common good”– but because of the power and the easy money they seek. Let us not be fools. As we said earlier, we know that expenses are recouped, gargantuan profits made once political victory is achieved. The conscienceless remark of a politician years ago wanting to take advantage of power remains operative even to this day: “What are we in power for?”
We need to change all this. Conversion to new values is the most basic of pastoral action. Again this points to the need for, as a first step, catechesis on politics, the need for political re-education at all levels of society and the Church, laity, religious, priests and bishops. It is noteworthy that at the level of grassroots Basic Ecclesial Communities, such a political re-education is taking place quite effectively.
At the level of Church leaders–whether clerical or lay–conversion is also imperative. By accepting special gifts and privileges from so-called trapos, by allowing them or their immediate relatives to take positions of authority in religious organizations, we are abetting their deeds of dishonesty and fraud, graft and corruption, and helping them maintain their power. By such conduct we allow our prophetic denunciation of political evils to lose its sharpness and credibility. We need to change our ways and be true prophets in our day.
5. Structural Change–a Goal of Pastoral Action. If personal conversion to new values is imperative, so is structural change. Many of the negative values that we have as a people are strongly embedded in some of our political processes. We spoke above of the unconscionable delays in announcing election winners. The delay is often due not only to the incompetence of election officials but also to manipulation of the electoral process by interested groups. Our electoral process is riddled with loopholes that make it possible for all sorts of evils to take place–cheating in registering, in voting, in counting and tabulating votes, in reporting results, in protesting against the results, in resolving protests, etc. Delays create additional evils. The notorious dagdag-bawas of the last senatorial election was made possible because of structural manipulation of the electoral process and because of delays. Indeed, reforms in the electoral process are necessary. A few years ago, the most trustworthy COMELEC in the past 30 years urged Congress to pass a number of electoral recommendations. By the time the very credible head of that COMELEC retired, Congress had not yet taken any action on the recommendations. Among the recommendations was to do away with political family dynasties–something the Constitution itself advocates. This was a threat to Congress. Structural changes are indeed urgent, in the electoral process especially, and hence the reform of that process must become a high priority for all of us.
6. Active Participation of Civil Society. With gratitude we consider the work of thousands upon thousands of volunteers working in non-partisan groups such as NAMFREL, PPC-RV, NASSA-VOTE CARE, Operation Quick Count, to name a few. These volunteers in NGOs and Church-based organizations have done a great service in witnessing to their conscience and faith to renew the political order, despite physical and psychological hardships and even the risk of life.However, such heroic efforts are not enough. The whole citizenry must awaken to the fact that the Filipino religious and moral sense is being destroyed by many factors, one of the most significant being politics. A general movement of civil society must take place to renew politics and rid it of its evil dimensions. Civic organizations, peoples’ organizations, associations of lay people and religious, school associations, etc.–all have to band together in true and active solidarity for the sake of the country.
The Church is committed towards such solidarity by helping create awareness of our social ills and by conducting values education in politics through its own network of resources and means of social communications; and beyond awareness and values, by encouraging and supporting action for change.
7. Political Advocacy. Pastoral action in the political sphere should also take the form of active advocacy. Everyone should be interested in knowing what bills are being considered by Congress, what positions regarding important legislations are being taken by senators and congresspersons. In solidarity civil society must articulate their support for laws, policies, and structural changes that will improve our lives in society and our political processes. It must lobby to defeat bills that militate against the aspirations of the poor, the integral development of our people, the integrity of creation, moral values in the family, the welfare of women, children and the young. Lobbying is seen unfortunately as the exclusive turf of those with vested economic interests, who evince little concern for the common good.It is a Christian task to work for laws that will bring about genuine prosperity, more equitable distribution of income and wealth, the promotion of the rights of the poor and of indigenous peoples. It is a Christian task to lobby for electoral reforms so that the people’s will may not be subverted.
Such active advocacy and lobbying requires a long and tedious process such as research, group organizing, participation in congressional hearings, and using various media to make the people know what is being done or not done in Congress regarding their destiny. Hence, civil society must have a strong sense of purpose, coordinated solidarity, tenacity and perseverance.
8. Organizing for Effective Change. We have two groups in the Church that have been most effective over the years in working for clean and honest elections: the PPC-RV of the Commission on the Laity and the NASSA VOTE-CARE of the Commission on Social Action, Justice and Peace. At the last CBCP meeting in July this year, the proposal was made–and unanimously accepted by the bishops–that there should be a clear division of labor between the two groups, and it was decided that the PPC-RV will henceforth be the Church body that will coordinate the efforts of the various dioceses during election times; the VOTE-CARE, on the other hand, will be the Church agency for her efforts between election times to educate and conscientize people for the renewal of the social and political order. To each diocese is given the responsibility of mobilizing the two bodies and their workers for their respective tasks.
The tasks of the PPC-RV–the organizing of independent poll watchers for election day itself is one of its most important responsibilities–are quite clear from past experience. But for VOTE-CARE there will be need to get the dioceses acting in more programmatic fashion through their Social Action Centers not only for a more systematic and concerted conscientization effort at raising awareness and concern about political (and economic) problems but also for action on monitoring post-election graft-and-corruption practices at barangay, municipal and provincial levels and, as well, the performance of elected officials.
We trust these two Church bodies will become in every diocese the effective cutting edge of our efforts at doing something positive about the reform and renewal in the Gospel of our much debased political order.
9. Constitutional Change. Today we are faced with a political crisis of great magnitude. This is the attempt to change the 1987 Philippine Constitution. As Bishops we have reflected lengthily on this crisis, discussed its social, political, economic, and cultural context, and its various implications. And we are one in our stand against changing the Constitution now.
We are saddened that religious sects and well-intentioned people as well as the principles of democracry have been exploited to promote the efforts to revise the Constitution. The end result has been disastrous: the worst of traditional politics has brazenly flaunted itself, an economic crisis has been aggravated, trust and credibility in government have been broken, and people feel deceived and manipulated. There is great and righteous anger among our people.
The attempts at constitutional change demonstrate the evils of politics that we have been talking of here–deviousness, double talk, deception, manipulation, lack of transparency, the use of power to promote self-interests. All these are values that are anti-Gospel and anti-Kingdom of God. We cannot ignore these. We must move against them.
We believe that the way to unity is to unconditionally, unequivocally and irrevocably terminate all attempts to revise the Constitution at this time. When the time does come, let it be done with widespread participation and a unity of vision, with total transparency and serenity, with reasons unarguably directed to the common good rather than to the self-serving interests of politicians. All elected officials looking for an extension of terms must categorically state now that they will not under any circumstance accept any further nominations for office.
The task now is to rebuild trust and confidence. It will be a painstaking chore. But rebuilding trust and confidence as well as transforming politics into what is pleasing to God can surely be done–by us, the People of God.
CONCLUSION
At one point of our history, we badly needed change and we got it–through People Power, without violence, at the EDSA Revolution. What we did in 1986 is an unfinished revolution. The reform of political life and processes is a necessary complement to the 1986 EDSA event. The odds we faced then were greater but we prevailed. The odds we face now are likewise formidable, but we can prevail.
We invite all of you, our Brothers and Sisters in the Lord, to join us in a common resolve to clean up and to renew what we have seen is one of the most harmful aspects of our national life–today’s kind of politics.
As at EDSA in 1986, so today: We must reason together for the common good, we must pray together and act together to transform politics into a means of national renewal, a means of just and integral development for every Filipino and for all Filipinos.
As at EDSA, so today: We do not work alone. As the Psalmist reminds us: “Unless the Lord build the house they labor in vain who build it” (Ps. 127:1). The work of conversion and renewal is indeed the work of God and He calls us to work with Him. This is the reason for our hope and our confidence — the grace of Almighty God. May Mary, the Mother of the Lord and of our beloved country, obtain for us from the Lord Jesus the graces we need for this momentous mission so vital for our future as a nation.
For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines:
+OSCAR V. CRUZ, D.D.
President
16 September 1997
x x x."
President
16 September 1997
x x x."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)