What’s freedom for?
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:11:00 06/12/2009
Filed Under: Independence day, Politics, Congress, Charter change
ANOTHER Independence Day, another missed opportunity. The orgy of naked self-interest we witnessed at the Batasan last week reminds us that our leaders have not only failed us yet again; they have also fallen far short of the standards our national heroes set. Today, and again next Friday on Jose Rizal’s 148th birth anniversary, we are duty-bound to ask: Did our heroes die, did we wage a revolution, did we endure the darkest days of a world war, did we struggle against a dictatorship, only to allow our politicians to perpetuate themselves in power?
Instead of renewing our pride in the achievements of the revolutionary generation that gave birth to the nation, Independence Day this year fuels our frustration, deepens our anger, over the shamelessness of the Arroyo administration’s attempt to convene a Senate-less constituent assembly. The vote last week was a blatant abuse of power, the ramming-through of a patently unconstitutional measure, in pursuit of a transparently partisan agenda. It was also an assault on history itself—our heroes struggled, suffered, fought, died so that we could live in freedom.
What is freedom for?
The congressmen who voted for Con-ass think they know the real-world answer: Freedom is doing as you please. They did not say it outright, of course, knowing instinctively that naked self-interest has no place in a republic. Instead, they gave reasons like the need for structural reform of the governmental system or the need for more liberalized economic provisions. A few were bold enough to suggest the procedural truth: They called the vote on Con-ass because they had the numbers.
Many, if not most, of the congressmen who voted for Con-ass did so to provoke a “justiciable” case before the Supreme Court; they hewed closely to Rep. Mikey Arroyo’s so-called scholarship argument. None of them, however, bothered to explain why, at this juncture in history, during a global economic crisis, under a presidency of unprecedented unpopularity, the particular matter of resolving the issue of joint voting was urgent, or even necessary.
In truth, this scholarship argument was a fig leaf of a reason, used by congressmen to hide a naked exercise of power. They were free, and powerful enough, to do as they pleased.
But this notion that freedom is the power to do as one pleases is not only contrary to republican values; it is also anti-patriotic, if by patria we mean the nation that our heroes built with their sacrifice.
It goes against everything that Apolinario Mabini taught us: we are free only to do good. In his True Decalogue, he reminds us that a republic is made “great through liberty.” Freedom, in other words, is the power to do great—publicly virtuous—things. But there is nothing great in the House majority’s decision to convene as a constituent assembly. Instead, it is the opposite: base, because of the vulgarity of the House majority’s ambition; mean, because of the administration coalition’s avarice. Self-interest is not a public virtue.
It also goes against the chief lesson Rizal taught us: we must be worthy of our freedom. We can only deserve liberty if we place the public interest ahead of our own, if we are capable of self-abnegation in the face of temptation or opportunity, if we are ready—as “Fili” enjoins us, in its last pages—“to suffer and to work.” The burden of sacrifice we expect from our elected representatives—term limits, public service, word of honor—the House vote seeks to lift from their shoulders.
Not least, it goes against the supreme example of Jose Abad Santos and against the meaning of Ninoy Aquino’s final sacrifice: the Filipino is worth dying for. This basic principle is true only if we accept that each citizen is sovereign. In the view of the Con-ass congressmen, however, citizens are mere votes to be entertained or distracted or bought. That explains why, despite clear majorities against constitutional change under the Arroyo administration or through the constituent-assembly mode, the Con-ass congressmen have forged ahead, ignoring the people’s will. They think, anti-patriotically, that freedom is the power to do as they please.
