Trial Story 1
Even a flicker of light can pierce through darkness. This is the challenge that confronts the university at this juncture in history — to serve as a beacon amid the twilight of authoritarianism and abuse of power.
For shadows pervade the current political landscape, from the brazen disregard for people’s civil liberties to ever-widening social inequalities. More troublingly, the integrity of our democratic institutions, the vanguards of people’s rights and welfare, is tested with the proposal to shift the current unitary form of government to a federal one, in keeping with the campaign promise of President Rodrigo Duterte.
Such an overhaul of the administrative rule necessitates a charter change, which Duterte has begun to advocate in the Congress through a constitutional assembly. The basis of this proposal rests on such an auspicious ideal, that of the robustness of democratic checkpoints in the form of the different branches of government.
Yet, history stands witness to the departures of our national government from the ideal of a balance of power. The university has in fact laid host to students who waged principled defiance against repressive regimes and regressive policies.
During the Martial Law, for example, UP students proffered the counterpoint that the country was still suffering from larger social ills that perpetuated poverty amid the Marcosian rhetoric of a new society. Protesting against a government-imposed hiatus, the Philippine Collegian, the university’s official student publication, went underground and continued to pen the most incisive critique of the tin-pot dictator.
Correspondingly, the times demand that the university never relent in opposing any force that threatens to stamp out the light of democracy. After all, UP plays the roles of a learner, a teacher, and an avenue for discourse as the premier institution of higher learning in the country.
UP, as a student, must not only learn from history but also rectify whatever error was committed in the past to steer the country in the right direction. The university can turn to the lessons from Martial Law, for one, which should remain perfervid in the memory of Filipinos as a reminder of the excesses of power and the perilous implications a charter change might have on the society.
As it is not only a passive observer, the university can educate Filipinos on the prospects and consequences of revising the constitution, the legal contradictions therein and what is in it for the people. It is incumbent upon UP to highlight, for example, the ill-preparedness of the country for a federal change in the government, given present social realities such as the fact of political dynasties, warlordism, and uneven development in provinces — all of which render the charter change’s goal of regional autonomy elusive.
Guiding the discourse is the ultimate part UP should play at this point. For an enlightened citizenry is any despot’s foe. The light of reason must shine through in every quarter, since, after all, it is the nature of light to travel fast and wide.
As an avenue of criticality, UP should then enjoin both the proponents of charter change and its primary stakeholders in a forum where, ultimately, the people’s interests should be foremost forwarded as in any form of legislation or policymaking. This political issue should also be discussed in light of the progressive principles the university has espoused for more than a century.
To this end, two issues are brought to light. First, the new provisions in the proposed charter should still retain the democratic character of the nation by preserving constitutional safeguards which advance the rights and welfare of the public. Additionally, a clear mechanism of checks and balances must still be enshrined so as to guard against any breach of the public’s trust and malevolent forms of political overkill.
Second, and most importantly, the university should set the discussion of charter change in the context of the rising authoritarianism, and consequently the erosion of democratic values, in the global arena.
In the United States, the election of Trump into office does not only betray the disillusionment of the American public with a Democrat-led government and the heretofore largely liberal rule. Rather, it also demonstrates the persistence of far-right and even extremist ideologies that are now gaining ground, and which, by contrast, serve as a stress-test to the steadfastness of American democratic fronts. Elsewhere, as in the war-ravaged Middle East and Putin’s Russia, power is concentrated in the hands of a few as well.
The Philippines likewise languishes in this bleak political climate. Whether or not a charter change is, ultimately, what the nation needs is more a question of what benefits the people than a crisis in faith in the current administration’s capacity to deliver political goods. The university, following its mandate to serve the public, should draw this sharpest line in the final analysis. After all, it is only in light of discourse and the people’s collective will can reality be baredEven a flicker of light can pierce through darkness. This is the challenge that confronts the university at this juncture in history — to serve as a beacon amid the twilight of authoritarianism and abuse of power.
For shadows pervade the current political landscape, from the brazen disregard for people’s civil liberties to ever-widening social inequalities. More troublingly, the integrity of our democratic institutions, the vanguards of people’s rights and welfare, is tested with the proposal to shift the current unitary form of government to a federal one, in keeping with the campaign promise of President Rodrigo Duterte.
Such an overhaul of the administrative rule necessitates a charter change, which Duterte has begun to advocate in the Congress through a constitutional assembly. The basis of this proposal rests on such an auspicious ideal, that of the robustness of democratic checkpoints in the form of the different branches of government.
Yet, history stands witness to the departures of our national government from the ideal of a balance of power. The university has in fact laid host to students who waged principled defiance against repressive regimes and regressive policies.
During the Martial Law, for example, UP students proffered the counterpoint that the country was still suffering from larger social ills that perpetuated poverty amid the Marcosian rhetoric of a new society. Protesting against a government-imposed hiatus, the Philippine Collegian, the university’s official student publication, went underground and continued to pen the most incisive critique of the tin-pot dictator.
Correspondingly, the times demand that the university never relent in opposing any force that threatens to stamp out the light of democracy. After all, UP plays the roles of a learner, a teacher, and an avenue for discourse as the premier institution of higher learning in the country.
UP, as a student, must not only learn from history but also rectify whatever error was committed in the past to steer the country in the right direction. The university can turn to the lessons from Martial Law, for one, which should remain perfervid in the memory of Filipinos as a reminder of the excesses of power and the perilous implications a charter change might have on the society.
As it is not only a passive observer, the university can educate Filipinos on the prospects and consequences of revising the constitution, the legal contradictions therein and what is in it for the people. It is incumbent upon UP to highlight, for example, the ill-preparedness of the country for a federal change in the government, given present social realities such as the fact of political dynasties, warlordism, and uneven development in provinces — all of which render the charter change’s goal of regional autonomy elusive.
Guiding the discourse is the ultimate part UP should play at this point. For an enlightened citizenry is any despot’s foe. The light of reason must shine through in every quarter, since, after all, it is the nature of light to travel fast and wide.
As an avenue of criticality, UP should then enjoin both the proponents of charter change and its primary stakeholders in a forum where, ultimately, the people’s interests should be foremost forwarded as in any form of legislation or policymaking. This political issue should also be discussed in light of the progressive principles the university has espoused for more than a century.
To this end, two issues are brought to light. First, the new provisions in the proposed charter should still retain the democratic character of the nation by preserving constitutional safeguards which advance the rights and welfare of the public. Additionally, a clear mechanism of checks and balances must still be enshrined so as to guard against any breach of the public’s trust and malevolent forms of political overkill.
Second, and most importantly, the university should set the discussion of charter change in the context of the rising authoritarianism, and consequently the erosion of democratic values, in the global arena.
In the United States, the election of Trump into office does not only betray the disillusionment of the American public with a Democrat-led government and the heretofore largely liberal rule. Rather, it also demonstrates the persistence of far-right and even extremist ideologies that are now gaining ground, and which, by contrast, serve as a stress-test to the steadfastness of American democratic fronts. Elsewhere, as in the war-ravaged Middle East and Putin’s Russia, power is concentrated in the hands of a few as well.
The Philippines likewise languishes in this bleak political climate. Whether or not a charter change is, ultimately, what the nation needs is more a question of what benefits the people than a crisis in faith in the current administration’s capacity to deliver political goods. The university, following its mandate to serve the public, should draw this sharpest line in the final analysis. After all, it is only in light of discourse and the people’s collective will can reality be bared.
