President Duterte: a matter of faith

duterte-world-of-religion-and-spirituality

By Joe America

Faith is not truth. It is confidence and commitment.

If ever there were a case study to prove the point, it would be the 75% satisfaction level for President Duterte.

What are the components of faith? An emotional need for community, purpose and hope.

Organized faiths promote a set of rules, often found in a book, accompanied by lessons as to how the faith is to be applied in life. Preachers are the teachers. There is a moral righteousness attached to the faith which cannot be challenged. To challenge is to disbelieve, to be a heathen. It is to promote disobedience and chaos and place at risk the community, the purpose and the hope.

People of faith tend to resist knowledge that conflicts with their rules or beliefs. If they change, it is in little, non-threatening steps.

Democracy is not a faith. It does not fight knowledge, but promotes it. Democracy sees argument as constructive, as a way to seek knowledge and create a commonly accepted direction.

President Duterte represents a faith, not a functioning branch of Philippine democracy. His administration is opposed to debate and knowledge. He demands obedience and allegiance, and his ministers (secretaries spokesmen, and captured legislators) and mercenaries (trolls) suppress complaints and the knowledge attached to them.

Here are some examples of how the Duterte Administration rejects knowledge in favor of faith.

  • The war on drugs. The faithful see a necessary elimination of threats to social well-being caused by drugs and crime. They are deaf to the understanding that most critics ACCEPT the need to control drugs. Critics are opposed to human rights violations. The truth . . . the knowledge . . . is that killings are taking place with no due process that would confirm or deny the guilt of the victims. This is a violation of the Constitutional provisions protecting citizens. The faithful reject this knowledge. On faith that the ends will be good, and there is no collateral damage (like creating a generation of kids prone to violence as their preferred solution).
  • Senator De Lima. The faithful see the necessary prosecution of an evil woman who seeks to persecute their leader. The truth is that the Senator is a woman of considerable professional experience and integrity. She also has a job to do, granted by the Constitution, and took an oath to do that job to serve the people. The faithful have gone beyond politics to make up vicious stories and fake evidence. It is reminiscent of the Salem witch hunts, and other emotional religious persecutions.
  • China. The faithful see a bold pivot toward the most influential nation in Asia, the nation that can make the Philippines productive and rich. The benefits may come to be true. The gains are in the future. But the pivot denies the laws in place to protect Philippine sovereignty, the most prominent being the Constitution and the recent UN arbitration ruling. And it places at risk the sea-based resources (fish and minerals) that could make the Philippines more secure or even wealthy. The faithful deny the laws, and the losses.
  • Behavior. The non-faithful see a rude and crude man, a diplomatic disaster who has denigrated the Philippines by cursing at the leaders of other lands, most prominently the United States and European Union, who shames them as Filipinos, and who has brought the economy to the brink of ruin. The faithful see a brave and manly man who stands up to the entitled who have delivered nothing to them, personally, in their lifetimes. For once, they can walk tall. To them, President Duterte is doing what is necessary to break through the chains of corruption and abuse that have bound the nation to failure. Duterte is hope, and he is courage. Well, the truth is that the Duterte Administration operates on the basis of power and favor, just like the predecessor administrations, and we do not yet know what the results will be. Without question, the Philippines is looked upon suspiciously by former friends, and many wonder why insults are needed. Without question, the stability and assurance that investors prefer are gone. The faithful don’t care.

We could cite more examples, but I think the point is clear. The faithful are in some kind of emotional denial. Because their needs are emotional, it is impossible to reason with them.

Argument would be welcome under democratic principles, for disagreements are a part of the process. A constructive response to a complaint would be to answer it. But what we get is an emotional response. A faith-based rejection of complaints. The person doing the complaining gets threatened as a devious person seeking to undermine the faith, where the state is merely standing in as the proxy for the faith.

What we are witnessing is not a political fight within democracy. It is a fight between knowledge and faith.

The Duterte Administration has a powerful organization. It has priests who interpret President Duterte’s messages and missionaries who carry out the work of converting or demonizing the non-faithful. It has a vast congregation, adoring followers who consider objection heresy, not opinion. Allegiance is based on faith, not knowledge.

The congregation does not yet have a temple, but when it does, it will be built in Davao.

I’ve stopped talking with most Duterte supporters because their emotional dedication is so confident, their commitment so unshakable, that it is futile to engage. They are not fully sentient humans, in my view. They have closed off the parts of the brain where knowledge ought to flow in.

What is peculiar to me is that many Filipinos seem to be practicing two religions at the same time. One is Christian or Muslim, and the other is Duterte. Both are faith driven. And what is extra peculiar to me is that many Christian and Muslim officals, representatives of their faith, are also practicing a second faith. It bends my mind and conjures up the term “flabbergasting”. Or bizarre. Or absurd.

The Duterte faith promotes an emotional bonding, a kind of spiritual cleansing. But not truth. It is based on commitment and confidence. Not knowledge.

The choir is shrill, ear-splitting.

It’s almost enough to incite one to shout a “Glory hallelujia!” and fly off into a spiritual frenzy of tongues.

Or get on a fast plane out of an island asylum that denies knowledge and truth, and along with it, decency. Where faith has turned brutal and the values we cherish . . . intelligence, honesty, honor, and dignity  . . . are being replaced by ignorance, lies, power, and violence.

 

Comments
159 Responses to “President Duterte: a matter of faith”
  1. karlgarcia says:

    Instead of Trust rating surveys, let us change it to Faith ratings.

    • NHerrera says:

      Karl, good suggestion.

      SWS and Pulse Asia, please take note.

    • 🙂 Faith is aggressive satisfaction, or satisfaction with a purpose

    • Oldmaninla says:

      Faith is mainly religious term ………normally not use in political term.
      JoeAm article is a personal theory…………….It sounds American politically correct..thinking.
      However, Asia’s political thinking is different, for reference, you may review Singapore Lee Kwan Yew’s interviews and Deng Xiao Peng speeches…..

      The applicability of democracy is questioned if it applies to all nations. Yes it applies to America, it is great! In brief, if I’m correct, American history started as a revolution against British, then became Federal government, then American bloody civil war, then as democracy nation. Great success.

      In Asian nations, mostly started as effective authoritarian then as life improves it changes to socialist capitalist democracy of some sort……look at Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, now China and Vietnam.

      What I observe, Philippines is struggling in its own unique history…..finding its way to be successful too. Which way?

      • In PH, faith underlies everything , including one’s daily meal so why not politics? Your use of “American politically correct thinking” is an insult to Joe who had done more to PH than an average Filipino. The values he is expounding “intelligence, honesty, honor, and dignity” are universal and are not unreasonable and beyond any Filipino. The pervading values of “ignorance, lies, power, and violence” are choices a lot of Filipinos have begun to embrace. The new values emanating from the “change” are very disturbing to any right thinking individual regardless of geography or race.

        • Oldmaninla says:

          No offence to JoeAm, just an honest personal opinion,
          having stayed in US for 40 years, an analyst by profession…..half of my life in Asia, half in America, many of my associations are Filipino-American intelligentsia.
          Prove me if my observation is not correct.

          The world governance is not mono-political, because the different people react or respond differently, especially Asian people who have a long history, even Philippines such small country, the northern Luzon react differently from the southern Visayas and Mindanao kabayans.

          • “What I observe, Philippines is struggling in its own unique history…..finding its way to be successful too. Which way?”

            Sounds like you are as bewildered as Joe and most of TSH members as to what make PH ticks. Why don’t you write an article putting some constructive suggestions as to how we unravel this societal dilemma named PRD? Your analysis of the issue before us will be greatly appreciated. Joe is one of “us.” Any tirade making him one of “them” will meet with fierce rebuttal.

            “Prove me if my observation is not correct.”

            I am a proof that Joe’s article is not of the “American politically correct thinking” genre. Why? I spouse the same mindset expressed, and so are most of the TSH contributors. Good values are universal. They are appreciated anywhere in the world.

      • chemrock says:

        @ Oldmanila
        Your penultimate para seems true. I think sorkor, Taiwan and Singapore went through the metamorphosis in modern history more or less within one generation. China has indeed changed drastically but its still a work in progress. It need the generation of old communists to die out before further changes can take place. A whole generation of new leadership schooled in western universities will be the catalyst. But they will face great revisionist forces which will be very destabilizing.

        Philippines on the other hand, has lost it’s way and wasted 2 generations squabbling away, squandering the rich resources that we are blessed with. Blind faith on celebrity, entrenched elites, and rabble rousers (which existed also in the Cory and Pnoy admin, fair and square). Which way will it go indeed. Joe’s article is indeed educational. Will Filipinos continue with blind faith, too lazy, or too emotionally coloured, to reassess premises in light of new knowledge? What we are seeing is many duterte supporters changing their minds. But far still many their emotional colour is fade-proof, for some the admission of error is beyond the ego, and for the bots, nothing can change them

        • Oldmaninla says:

          @ Chemrock
          My observation, currently, there are two forces evidently and clearly showing… one, maintain the status quo by yellow group, second, make change by Duterte group. How this two groups interplay will determine the next political episode……..maybe?

          Since Philippines independence was granted by America in 1946, 70 years after, the promised formula of Democratic Philippines has not produced the results as expected.
          Now, the 11% overseas Filipino kababayan, which is about 11 million world wide, large majority of OFW are demanding national change as reflected in the social media, their influence reaches their families and relatives at home.

          As imperfect the new Duterte administration, the cry for change is real…….this is part of the national evolution aiming for a better country. How will it interplay?…… my guess is as good as yours.

  2. Gemino H. Abad says:

    Thanks, Joe! Ignorance (on both sides of the divide) and power (on one side only) — a terrible situation. “Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, / The blood-dimmmed tide is loosed … / The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.” (Yeats)

  3. NHerrera says:

    IMPLICATION

    If, rather than knowledge-and-fact based democracy is NOT what the Philippines have, but faith-based Democracy — an oxymoron I admit in the first place , then there is trouble ahead.

    While a lot of Christian countries have turned rather enlightened or rational in their faith, or rejected the faith altogether, the Philippines is rather strong in its faith, if ritualistic faith.

    So, please no, not another of the kind.

    • NHerrera says:

      Oops that did not come out right, here’s an edited version:

      IMPLICATION

      If, knowledge-and-fact based democracy is NOT what the Philippines have, but rather some fashion-based Democracy — an oxymoron, then there is trouble ahead.

      While a lot of Christian countries have turned rather enlightened or rational in their faith, or rejected the faith altogether, the Philippines is rather strong in its blind faith, if ritualistic faith.

      So, please no, not another of the kind — that is blind faith in Duterte, unmindful of a preponderance of evolving developments if not facts.

      • edgar lores says:

        *******
        Blind faith — that is faith without a scintilla of a doubt — is the gravest sin of fundamentalism. It is the womb of fanaticism and the cradle of terrorism.

        A man who entertains no questions about his faith is mindless, an automaton, a zombie.

        Faith and doubt, at their best, have a symbiotic relationship. The true test of faith is doubt. And doubt, once resolved, reaffirms faith and makes it stronger.

        If faith fails a test of doubt, then logically one can conclude that it is a false faith.

        JoeAm has not only enumerated some of the tests of faith in Duterte — the anti-drug war, De Lima, China, and his impolite behavior — but also analyzed why each test can be considered to be a failure.

        Just taking the first one, the anti-drug war, no one has controverted the fact that the killings are extra-constitutional. And no one has been able to come up with an example of a country where violence against drug personalities has succeeded.

        That many still retain faith — blind faith — in Duterte shows how deep the vein of mindless faith runs in the Filipino psyche.
        *****

  4. edgar lores says:

    *******
    1. In a certain sense, democracy is a faith. It is the faith that the best government is attained when the people are sovereign.

    2. But in another sense, democracy is not a faith because the faith in it has proved to be true in many countries.

    3. Where democracy has failed (or is failing), one can truly say that the system has NOT failed. Rather, the people have failed (or are failing) the system.

    4. For democracy requires commitment. And where the people – that is, the government in place and the ordinary citizens — do not commit themselves to its preservation, then democracy will fail.

    5. In our country, I would not say that democracy has failed yet… but it is in a woeful state because among other things:

    5.1. Politicians steal
    5.2. Politicians practice nepotism and cronyism
    5.3. Voters sell their votes
    5.4. Voters do not study (who to vote for and what the issues are)
    5.5. Politicians create and voters perpetuate dynasties
    5.6. Politicians and voters do not understand constitutional principles
    5.7. Politicians and voters do not observe the law (national and international)
    5.8. Politicians and voters do not observe civility and common decency
    5.9. Justice can be bought

    6. Within the space of 4 months, the Duterte administration and the people have amply demonstrated items 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8.

    7. What did Senator Trillanes say to Cayetano when Matobato was testifying? He said, “You ‘re protecting evil!”

    7.1. In many philosophies and theologies, evil is ignorance.

    7.2. What then to call knowledge – such as Cayetano’s — that protects and encourages ignorance? Something stronger than “enabler” or “abettor.”

    7.3. Whatever one calls it, most religions were once — are? — guilty of it. And it is a greater sin than ignorance itself.
    *****

    • Wonderful points. Indeed, the value of democracy is taken on faith, but the principles tend to be inclusive rather than divisive. Religions can be divisive, but as we see a hardening of the democratic faith in the US and PH, we are seeing a softening of a number of religious faiths to find a way to include or respect or live with other religions. So it is interesting that the reasoning faith (democracy) is showing people’s inability to reason, while the emotional faiths (religions) are showing an inclusive spirit.

      [edited]

    • “6. Within the space of 4 months, the Duterte administration and the people have amply demonstrated items 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8.”

      the formal construct of the state is still a foreign body for a majority of Filipinos, something put on top of the old barangay and datu system which mutated into trapoism.

      someone who comes from “datu politics” like Duterte – and his followers – have values that are totally different, and see the formal values of the state as “elitist” and even “Utopian”…

    • Oldmaninla says:

      Great presentation!

    • Oldmaninla says:

      Edgar Lores, this great! You hit the nail head.

      5. In our country, I would not say that democracy has failed yet… but it is in a woeful state because among other things:

      5.1. Politicians steal
      5.2. Politicians practice nepotism and cronyism
      5.3. Voters sell their votes
      5.4. Voters do not study (who to vote for and what the issues are)
      5.5. Politicians create and voters perpetuate dynasties
      5.6. Politicians and voters do not understand constitutional principles
      5.7. Politicians and voters do not observe the law (national and international)
      5.8. Politicians and voters do not observe civility and common decency
      5.9. Justice can be bought

      6. Within the space of 4 months, the Duterte administration and the people have amply demonstrated items 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8.

  5. Sherry says:

    Thanks very much for this Joe. Since the campaign period I am puzzled by the frenzy over Duterte, and even more so after he was proclaimed as the president of the Philippines, the frenzy became blind adoration. Your article gave me some enlightenment. I guess i’d be more understanding of my friends and relatives who as you put it, have “emotional dedication so confident… commitment so unshakable, that it is futile to engage.”

    It is just my hope that one day, they’d have a sort of an awakening. I’d pray for this day to come sooner before it is too late for all of us.

    Mabuhay ka Joe!

  6. a distand observer says:

    I think this is a very nice way of framing the whole debate: “The Duterte faith promotes an emotional bonding, a kind of spiritual cleansing. But not truth. It is based on commitment and confidence. Not knowledge.”
    I would however dare to ask the question whether it really doesn’t need faith to make even a democracy work in the first place. A person without any faith or believes is completely empty and will not get very far. Atheists might not believe in gods but only “hard facts”. But every scientist knows that even scientific knowledge is only valid until a new scientific paradigm comes along. Europeans might believe in democracy, while Chinese believe in authoritarian socialism. Regardless of whether people are made into believing something or they accept it deliberately, it is what makes the system work.
    I will continue to argue with Duterte supporters because it is the only way to keep the conversation going. Even if it is depressing sometimes, who else is trying to get the opposite view through? It will be of no benefit for the Philippines if the intellectuals discuss the faultiness of the Duterte administration only among themselves while the Duterte supporters continue to glorify him.

    • You make good sense, observer. See my note to Edgar about democracy as faith. You are also wise to continue the debate. I’m thinking that maybe it could be framed differently. I think asking Duterte supporters to identify what they see as his mistakes or weaknesses is extraordinarily telling. They either confirm the faith (no flaws), or are disingenuous (manipulative; citing irrelevant flaws). Or they are candid and honest and we can acquire a more wholesome view of those following him.

      • a distand observer says:

        Thank you for your reply. I think it is a good idea to specifically ask Duterte supporters about his flaws. It is probably the fastest way to identify the “reasoning set” in a discussion.

    • NHerrera says:

      I will continue to argue with Duterte supporters because it is the only way to keep the conversation going. Even if it is depressing sometimes, who else is trying to get the opposite view through? It will be of no benefit for the Philippines if the intellectuals discuss the faultiness of the Duterte administration only among themselves while the Duterte supporters continue to glorify him.

      Like — 3X.

    • chemrock says:

      Distant observer – nice point of view.

      Just for clarification as it applies to the current situation –

      Those who don’t have faith in the president, but who believes in democracy, does that make them empty?

      Will the system work when people are pretending to have faith in the leadership? Case in point, Norkor. It’s been 3 generations and the system is still in place.

      • a distand observer says:

        @ chemrock
        I will try to answer these questions sufficiently, let me know if you disagree.

        1. To clarify my claim about “empty” people. I just think it is in the nature of humans to have a certain “believe system” that serves as basis for human’s motivations and preferences. It is not possible for humans to not believe anything at all, since human life is always lived from a subjective perspective. Hence, a hypothetical person that would have no believe system at all would have no motivation or preferences. This is what I would call an “empty person”. Those who don’t believe that the current president of the Philippines decides and acts righteously could still believe in democratic values, yes. But just because one has no faith in a democratically elected leader does not mean one is “empty” in the sense I tried to clarify above.

        2. I am proponent of this “fake it till you make it” theory. I think this can work. From a psychological standpoint, there is a TED talk that illustrates that quiet convincingly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks-_Mh1QhMc
        As for political systems, I think it can work as well. You mentioned North Korea, Germany during the 1930s and 1940s is another good example. I’m sure there were many Germans that despised Hitler and his ideas, but they played along because of fear or benefits this system posed for them. So yes, I think the system will work when people pretend to have faith in its leadership. The question is rather, whether the people are willing to do that, because it would go against their own believe system. If enough people decide to not pretending anymore, that’s when the system becomes unstable.

        • chemrock says:

          Re your #2
          I’m wondering how many in the Senate and Congress are faking it – their blind support for the president I mean. For one, Dick Gordon seems fake.

          • Juana Pilipinas says:

            I would say 97% of the Legislators are opportunistic lemmings. Most of the 3% belong to LP. Isn’t that quite revealing?

            I would like ask Manong NH to parse that and compare it to the general PH population.

  7. Nietzsche once said something, I think, about music being the only true bridge between emotion and logic…

    so this is the only answer I can give for now… an excerpt from George Michael’s ‘Faith’..

    “Before this river
    Becomes an ocean
    Before you throw my heart back on the floor
    Oh baby I reconsider
    My foolish notion
    Well I need someone to hold me
    But I wait for something more

    Yes I’ve gotta have faith
    Unh I gotta faith
    Because I gotta to have faith, faith, faith
    I gotta to have faith, faith, faith”

  8. Fedelynn says:

    May I share this? “TROLLS FOR TRUMP” http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/31/trolls-for-trump

    While reading, I kept seeing the PHL situation with regard to Duterte and his Internet Trolls… I have no formal training handling social media for an institution, so I just mix instinct and lessons from articles like this. Some of us may find it useful. Thanks.

  9. bnimble07 says:

    What’s slowly developing is a cult following – Cult of Duterte – if you will. Like all cults, the words, ideas and commandments of the leader cannot be questioned let alone disobeyed. These are dangerous times in the Philippines, we haven’t seen this since Marcos days. And that ended up a total disaster which the country is still feeling negative effects decades later. This could explain DU30’s perplexing (to this writer) affinity to the Marcoses. There was hero-worship between DU30 and Marcos. He was DU30’s idol from the sounds of it. There’s also shades of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela emerging. Look what’s happening in Venezuela these days, it’s in a dystopian state. This will not end well.

  10. Andres10,000 says:

    Hello Joe,

    This is me, your friend, Andres. My old accounts are still forbidden in your blog so i created, again, another one. I think my accounts passed the 60 days suspension already. I do visit here from time to time. I just like to butt in the following sentiments of the faithful on certain issues you have mentioned:

    The war on drugs. The faithful agree to the necessary elimination of threats to social well-being caused by drugs and crime. The faithful also know some critics want the same and the faithful are cool with that. The faithful also know that there are bastards using this human rights violation thing to oust our Daddy D. For the sake of due process if your keen is murdered file a case. What the flying duck, the PNP told the senate investigators that only 22 cases was filed out of the 1500 murders within the first two months of the drug war. The faithful believe that those killings, outside of police operations, are done by some shitheads who want their identities hidden because they are involve. The faithful believe in violence as a cure, as it is a disease. Take this verse from the Book of Luke “But as for these enemies of mine who didn’t want me to be their king—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence!” Jesus said this.

    Senator De Lima. The faithful, with the help of the faithful’s common sense, can conclude that she is riding this EJK shows to pursue her own agenda! If she is so eager to fulfill her duty as a senator, go prosecute those shameless policemen, file a damning bill that sentence a reclusion perpetua to those bastards. Instead, all she did was to strip down our Rockstar, come on, he is just rocking the beat when he said kill, kill, kill, the astig image you know.

    China. Oh those chinks, bastards! But they have this jets, and ships, and subs. They wont obey the UN Arbitral Tribunal. They know this smelly shit that UN has no sheriff of some sort. What should we do, ask help from our big brother to torpedo those bastard ships? But big brother did not comment on this as it is hypothetical. Big brother has to take care his own things, too. The faithful believes that the most rational way is to be friend that bastard.

    Behavior. What the unfaithful failed to see is that you cannot offer the faithful with knowledge. We are emotional animals, we seek outlets for our emotions, we long for freedom, we been suppressed by Spain, by Japan, by USA. We never taste real independence thats why our growth as a nation was stunted. The faithful needs hope, and yes we found it in President Rodrigo Roa Duterte. You want to destroy our hope? You will face our faith-founder wrath! Don’t feed us with knowledge, instead, feed us hope, hope better than Daddy D if you have.

    • Niteowl says:

      To be honest, there’s been a confusion on both sides that irks most readers. Obviously most contributors in this website are honking to discredit the new president. It’s quite irritating to watch a predominantly one sided mission. I expected that most intellectually versed contributors can lay it clearly without any bias the pros and con of issues, unfortunately their statements are only tainted with resentment and frustrations but also laden with hate for the new administration. One can clearly detect the motivation of the failed camp by just reading and watching how they reacted within the 100 days!
      By looking at themselves at the mirror who criticize and mock their new leader, we can conclude that all they claim as blind faith or ignorant faith are what they themselves reflected. Please give us a more unbiased criticism to safeguard that hope, which has been elusive to many and denied by past administrations! For those who have benefitted immensely from past
      administrations need to question their own blind faith or moral ignorance.

      Thanks for Andres for stating his side –

      • Niteowl, contributors on the blog are required to discuss issues, not each other. You have just expressed a blanket condemnation of a lot of sincere, honorable, earnest people. If you want issues discussed differently, discuss them. Don’t hide in the bushes snarling at those who care enough to comment . . . on issues affecting a nation they care very much about.

    • chemrock says:

      Andres
      I’ll just cherry pick on one issue – China.

      Firstly, thanks for showing us what true duterte supporters are like – uncouth racist. There is no need to call them chinks or bastards. Would it be all right for them to call you pigs or the most bastardized nation on earth, which has factual basis. Show us you are better than this

      Second – this shit UN, well actually Joe is spot on isn’t it. Blind faith = blind adoption of what’s preached. It’s now fashionable to screw the UN. Actually you should say putang UN.

      Thirdly – why do duterte supporters always argue the China issue with the futility of war? What faith is there when you give up when not a single shot has been fired? There are ways to handle China. The first step has already been successfully taken by Pnoy. Did the president study the courses open to Philippines? Obviously not, because he had already thrown in the towel even before the election. There have been precedents before of a weak nation facing a big bully over certain issues and they came out just fine without surrendering anything. How did they do it? Through the UN, the same one that you unceremoniously called shit. No the UN is not going to send a Sarah to slap our bully. That’s not their job. But through Philippines using every UN conferences of whatever platform, every UN committee or sub-committe meetings, every other UN sessions, to keep the issue in the spotlight. Through Philippines sending real diplomats out to every country in the world to garner support. Whilst Philippines were waiting for the UN arbitration results, China were building lots of support. Of course they garnered about 40 countries due to aid and trade dangled in front of them. But freedom of navigation in the South China Sea affects all nations. There will be countries that will align with us. With the UN and major countries aligned with us, some of those 40 countries with China will cross the line because their overall interest probably lies with the rest of the world.

      This diplomatic option requires great salesmanship and takes a long time to work out. Sorry, can’t be done in 6 months. Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi took years to get out of prison and into political leadership, mainly through this same arduous way, mostly be other people working on their behalf.

      Thirdly – US will not fight for Philippines. How do you know? The Americans have mentioned many times they will honor their treaty obligations. Do you even understand the status quo of the US-Philippines mutual defense treaty? The US will defend Philippines in the event of an invasion on our territory. The Chinese occupied those islands which are not Philippines territory, they are just our EEZ. Thus the Philippines cannot call on the mutual defense treaty just yet

      Fourthly – in the meantime the US is sending a message loud and clear to the Chinese by flying war planes and battleships sailing close to those islands within the 9 dash lines. Now this has nothing to do with Philippines. This is the US saying they will protect the freedom of passage, a burden the US is carrying for the rest of the free world.

      Fifthly – why do you accept the faith of a Chinese might which is unproven. Chinese military is 50 years behind the US. They have been unable to do anything against the Vietnamese and the Indians. The Chinese military has the numbers, but they are paper tigers at the moment. They know that technologically, their military is no match for the Americans. The Chinese will not pick a fight with the US at this point in time. What has been Chinese response to the two times the US tested them? Just loudhailer sounds.

      Either our president has not read the Chinese correctly, or he has other agendas as suggested by those deals with shady Chinese companies, which has now been rephrased bas MOUs. Faith is accepting whatever the president say it is, and then accepting the interpreted versions of his secretaries, and then finally believing the President’s revised and flip flopped version, and telling yourself they were all truth.

      The truth is that all commenters here want the president to succeed. But his actions have made it difficult for us to maintain faith. Faith must be questioned in the light of real knowledge.

      • Andres10,000 says:

        Chemrock,

        Firstly – I called the people chinks, and you called the people’s armies paper tigers. I think we are sailing in the same boat.

        Secondly – I am not calling UN itself shit, rather, my pieces of shits is with the fact that they have no sheriff powers, to implement things like to water cannon those Chinese vessels out of WPS.

        Thirdly – If you happen to come with this before that the strategy on the WPS was to settle it first with diplomacy, gain international court approval, gain worldwide approval, bomb Chinese strongholds. Heard the Aquino’s Military Modernization? Diplomacy only will not solve it, you cannot force the Chinese out of WPS with nations shouting insults because of their unholy encroachment. Chinese no longer the sick man of Asia, they wont listen to the barking of the nations. South China Sea holds the future of China as super power, they could not just throw away their future. If things will go this way, legal approval, popular support, encroachment, then US (through the Philippines) is out of guilt to bomb those artificial islands. And its war, Philippine-Chinese War maybe. US backing up the Philippines absolutely. US may say, “hey little brother, i will give you this dozen Raptors to fight the Chinese, but you need to purchase the other dozen.” But its war, and war is bad for business.

        Another scenario is that US will not use force against China for the sake of WPS because of the economic ties between these two giants. They could not compromise it for the sake of freedom of navigation. China is not the enemy of US. And we (and the world) are left barking, for decades maybe.

        Fourthly – Oh, US sending warplanes in SCS? Lets see how will the US congress and the US citizens react when they, again, meddle on the wars of others halfway around the globe, and its against China. We dont know how the US citizenry will buy out this “war on terrorism,” “war for freedom of navigation,” or “war against communism.”

        Fifthly – Who knows, military are always secret, we commoners, has no way to measure the military might of those nations. But its not about the inferiority of Chinese Military against the US, its the avoidance of war and the upholding of good relations with thy neighbors.

        Oh, those shady Chinese deals, i heard the Senate will investigate on these eh? Check’n Balance?

        • karlgarcia says:

          The UN “Shetiff powers”

          Behold the UN security council,its so-called big 5 and its veto powers…..
          —-
          In mid-1944, the delegations from the Allied “Big Four”, the Soviet Union, the UK, the US and China, met for the Dumbarton Oaks Conference in Washington, D.C. to negotiate the UN’s structure,[11] and the composition of the UN Security Council quickly became the dominant issue. France, the Republic of China, the Soviet Union, the UK, and US were selected as permanent members of the Security Council; the US attempted to add Brazil as a sixth member, but was opposed by the heads of the Russian and British delegations.[12] The most contentious issue at Dumbarton and in successive talks proved to be the veto rights of permanent members. The Soviet delegation argued that each nation should have an absolute veto that could block matters from even being discussed, while the British argued that nations should not be able to veto resolutions on disputes to which they were a party. At the Yalta Conference of February 1945, the American, British, and Russian delegations agreed that each of the “Big Five” could veto any action by the council, but not procedural resolutions, meaning that the permanent members could not prevent debate on a resolution.[13]
          ——

          Of course, China will veto any action. It takes only one veto,and if not them, Russia might veto any actions on WPS.

          As of now the situation has not escalated to call for thngs to be raised to the security council.

          Regarding UNCLOS rulings.
          Russia ignored UNCLOs rulings before,and now is China’s turn.

          But so far, both have not led to worst case scenarios.


          I submit the Chinese have lots of dollar reserves, and there are still US manufacturers. in China.
          Speaking of reserves, the threat of Saudi Arabia to pull out dollars, was just a threat.
          (911 accusations), but the Chnese has yet to threaten of dedollarization.

          The US elections may answer questions regarding US actions.

        • chemrock says:

          Andres
          1. No, we are in different boats. Mine is M/S Civility, I don’t know what’s yours. ‘Chinks’ is as derogatory as it gets, ‘paper tiger’ is term referring to something or someone which appears threatening but is ineffectual.

          2. In case you have never noticed, UN acts through its member countries. Sure they don’t have water canons, but they have solid laws and rules that member nations abide by. Sometimes a member state may go ballistic, it’s up to all other member states to sort things out. There have been misses, but there have been many successes that encourages us law abiding types and give us hope.

          3. Thank you for acknowledging that there is such a thing as ‘Aquino military modernation’. Philippines is way behind many countries, and in fact has no external defence capabilities. Aquino started to beef up the army for two reasons – good financial management gave the Pnoy admin the budgetary capability to modernise the AFP,
          our military adequacy definitely needed addressing and urgently, the Chinese incursion serves only to highlight our weaknesses. Can you please get it through your head that modernising and army or upgrading military hardware does not meant preparation for war or bitching for a fight. It’s the reason why the dept that is tasked with that is called Defence Dept. Not having an external defence capability is direlection of duties, regardless of whether China is at the doorsteps or not.

          Your scenario for war is highly immature so I won’t go into it. Only to say that the party that keeps on harping on war are the President’s supporters, such as you here. This war thing is building up to a crescendo and for what purpose?. Couldn’t this be a ruse to create an excuse for talks in Beijing and give away what you already own. The ways of Machiavelli are dark and difficult to discern for many. Chew on this when you go to bed tonight.

          Hey little brother or little brown brother are self-deriding terms that you and Yassay project only to whine in a loss of esteem that nobody was throwing at you.

          4. US congress or senate reaction to war — a deflection of the debate here.

          5. “It’s the avoidance of war and the upholding of good relations” — can you please step outside of yourself and listen to what you’re saying. Once again, war is your hype. Island grabbing is a good way to maintain good relations.

          6. Senate inquiry – the only point that I agree with you. Except I never have faith in all these senate inquiries.

          • Andres10,000 says:

            Chem,

            1. I thought we were. Is belittling or underestimating the same with racism?

            2. Considering the links of Sir karlgarcia, will this veto power renders ineffective any decision by UN against China?

            3. I don’t know Machiavelli. If you are not thinking of war or any arm conflict the least, are you implying that China will give back WPS in a peaceful way?

            4. I am pointing out a possible disagreement of the US citizenry when US meddles again with someone’s war or any arm conflict of some sort. This is on assumption that there is a Philippine-Chinese War on going. Back to the issue of freedom of navigation that according to you, will be the burden of the US to uphold, and that their message is load and clear, why is it they have not park their aircraft carrier in the WPS, particularly around Panatag Shoal? Its not a territory of the Philippines, everyone has the right to navigate in there.

            5. Hmm, its not even an island, it was a rock.

            • chemrock says:

              Andres
              1. One is a good English term which I used to describe a fact, nothing belittling. Chinks is a rascist term way up the with ‘nigger’. If ever you’re in New York Chinatown, try calling a Chinese there chink and see what happens.

              2. Deflection again. Jarl was referring to UN security sessions, I was referring to all other UN committees and sessions and there are many. Why don’t you read uo on Nicaragua, don’t waste your time on mocha uson.

              3. Machiavelli — very briefly we say someone igs Machiavellian when he intentionally plots a path, usually by deceit or through lies, so as to lead someone or people who unknowingly takes a course of action that leads to a desired outcome of the schemer. He did say that he plants evidence when he was public prosecutor.

              Will China give up in a peaceful way? Never try, never know. But I do know this. As China grows rich and trades with the world, they will learn that all countries are inextricably tied together. They will find that irresponsible behaviour begets problems. They will find they need to coexist with the world. The way forward to a resolution is to seek a face saving formula. I’ll leave that to better brains.

              4. My 2 cents is that both China and US will not go to war over WPS. There may be some skirmishes, but no full-fledged war over freedom of navigation.

              Why US does not station or anchor their aircraft carrier in WPS? Sorry I am no US military expert. But I can say this. Philippines is not reliable, that’s why US have plan B – facilities in Singapore and Vietnam. Their aircraft Carrier don’t need to be in the eye of the conflict area. The US has capabilities to knock out missiles the moment they are launched.

              Finally it’s not islands but just pieces of rocks. To not about rocks, its about resources under the sea, its about fishermen’s livelihood, it’s about freedom of navigation, it’s about trillion $

            • chemrock says:

              Sorry got cut off…

              It’s about trillion $ trade flows, and you know what, it’s about Philippines’ sovereignty. I thought the last of which, sovereignty, is a big thingy with the clan? So it’s just rocks, meaning it’s OK to give away in Beijing? Is that what you mean? Whatever ha0pened to the sovereignty battle cry.

              • Andres10,000 says:

                Chemy,

                1. I believe know Chinese lurking here? No one will punch me in the face if i say chinky.

                2. To solve this certain argument of ours, it was not the UN who issued the rulling, it was the PCA. China veto power is not existing in PCA. Then we are back at square one, is UN handling anything in this particular issue? Or simply, can UN resolve a territorial dispute?

                3. Its unclear if China will let it go peacefully, they may or they may not. Your bet is they may because they need to save face to co exist. My bet is they will not, no matter what. Saving face is not an issue with them, 40 nations are ok with what they are doing. If they let it go, other countries will follow suit, they will lost their claim, in the same manner, in the entire South China Sea. Lets leave it here, 50-50.

                4. So US thinks Philippines is not reliable, eh? So are they. They should have talk with China themselves about this wayback 2012, threaten those chinks with bombs if they are building in international waters. It seems US cannot carry any more the burden you are talking about.

                5. Our sovereignty limits only to our 12-mile territorial seas. We cannot give those rocks because it is not ours, it is outside of our territory. The sovereignty battle cry limits only to our territories. It is the right to fish and to explore that we are fighting for. [look in the news, Filipino fishermen can go visit the WPS now without being threaten by the Chinese.]

              • Andres10,000 says:

                Edit. Know > No. Fuck sake speelign.

    • a distand observer says:

      Thanks for stating your point of view. First of all, the court that decided over this issue was the Arbitral Tribunal which is completely independent from the UN’s International Court of Justice: http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/.
      Second, please don’t call a democratically elected President “Daddy” if you want to be taken serious here. Yes of course, the Chinese will not respect this desicion, they announced that from the very beginning. They just follow the example from the US that has a very weak history in respecting international institutions as well.
      Hope. Yes the “faithful” needed hope, and they fell for the candidate with the loudest mouth and biggest promises. There is nothing I want to see more than a strong, independent Philippines, but this is certainly not achieved by exchanging one Big Brother with another Big Brother. Especially if the new Big Brother has shady intentions and a pretty undemocratic approach to politics. Do people want to be lied to themselves (that’s not only applied to Filippinos but to all peoples around the world)? That’s a question I ask myself for sometime now.
      Hope. Yes there is still hope. It is the last thing that dies. It only dies when everything else is already dead. But please don’t mix hope with lies. Just because people are desperate for hope doesn’t mean they should believe anything from a person on whom hopes are pinned. I am the last one who wants to destroy any person’s hope, I just encourage you: look around and tell me what you see. Look at countries that are China’s closest allies. Look at the economic and political history of Cambodia, North Korea or Myanmar, and tell me how their Big Brother China turned everything for the better. You will find out, that it is naive to think that the Philippines will be better off with China as major ally.

      • chemrock says:

        Observer
        I think Andres is a very smart guy. He certainly understands is not the best of countries for Philippines to lean on. He is actually saying you Chinese are chinky bastards, I don’t like you, but you have big guns, so let me be your friends.

        That’s the kind of logic for the Chinese to have great faith in us.

        • a distand observer says:

          Thanks chemrock for the hint. I just realize I misread Andres’ comment on China. My bad.

        • caliphman says:

          Chem, Andres: Thank you for sharing with others opposing views as to whether this admin has a sensible China strategy or not. The comment exchanges I have observed elsewhere end up being intimidation contests. Generally these contests are of two types: by insults or threats or by overpowering argumentation. The latter can be equally intimidating when one side refuses to listen or understand because his beliefs are based on faith and not on reasoned argumentation, precisely what Joe’ s points out. Its good that Andres is willing to argue and reason his views here many of which I do not share as the last thing I want to hear are recitations from a Duterte catechism. My most important takeaway from these exchanges is that it would be great if China meaning Xi will see it in its best interest to resolve its sovereignty disputes with the Philippines not with intimidation but with what makes sense to both. It seems to me Duterte and his supporters will be more credible if they like China if they rely less on invectives and intimidation and more on reasoned argumentation to support their views. A parting comment, it is my view that Duterte is on the right track in pursuing bilateral talks to resolve the Spratley disputes and that he is wrong in turning away from the US if his idea is that he can play China better in getting what he wants as the Chinese are no fools.

          • edgar lores says:

            *******
            Caliphman,

            Good points.

            Because of JoeAm’s moderation, the exchanges here do not end up as intimidation contests as they do elsewhere as you rightly point out. But neither do they always end because of overpowering argumentation.

            In my experience, some exchanges descend into a tedious tit-for-tat. In my experience, this happens at about the third or fourth round of the exchanges.

            At that point, it is futile to continue. The participants are still seemingly engaged, but in reality, they are talking past each other. The object is no longer to arrive at truth but simply to say anything to defend one’s position.

            There will be some semblance of truth in the final statements, but the gist of the issue(s) being discussed would have been lost.

            ***

            As an example, here are the abbreviated exchanges between Andres and myself on the issue of the use of violence and whether it is constitutionally permitted:

            Round 1

            1.1. Andres: “The faithful believe in violence as a cure, as it is a disease.”

            1.2. Edgar: “If violence is a disease, how can it be a cure?”

            …The Constitution does not grant the use of violence. (Refer to item (2), Section 12 of the Bill of Rights.)

            Round 2

            2.1. Andres: “It is a cure if you use it to stop more violence. e.g. “Little Boy” and “Fat Man.”

            2.2. Edgar: “The primary lesson to be learned from Little Boy and Fat Man is that violence should not be used at all… because violence begets violence. It is a cycle that once started is almost next to impossible to stop. Therefore, in the first place, Japan should not have gone to war.

            o One must distinguish between two kinds of violence. Arguably, Little Boy and Fat Man were defensive rather than offensive tools. Their use is morally justifiable in the same manner that self-defense is.

            o Nor can it [meaning violence] be legally justified: the use of violence is unconstitutional. This point has not been rebutted.

            Round 3

            3.1. Andres: “Yes, violence begets violence that’s why I said it is a disease. It is a cycle that can be stop only with more violence, that’s why the cure. Japan could not match the violence brought about by Little Boy and Fat Man, that’s why they lost, and the cycle halted there. Defensive or offensive still violence.

            The use of violence is in the constitution. Death penalty, martial law, are violence in itself or agents of it. The constitution provide for it in certain circumstances, the use of it is constitutional.

            3.2. Edgar: “5.2. Sorry, don’t buy your:

            o Justification of violence
            o The lie that the imposition of the death penalty is provided for in the Constitution.
            o The lie that martial law equates to violence

            …This is my last riposte. You are not being truthful and you are not exercising due diligence.”

            Round 4

            Andres: “Violence is real, no need to justify.”

            ***

            In Round 1, I clearly state that the “Constitution does not grant the use of violence.” By citing Section 12 of the Bill of Rights, I am specifically talking about the use of violence against “any person under investigation for the commission of an offence.”

            Then in Round 3, Andres makes the counter-claim that the use of violence is in the Constitution.

            Notice these two fallacies:

            1. He widens the scope of the issue of violence to include the death penalty and martial law.
            2. He bases his counter-claim on the “literal” interpretation that the terms “violence,” “death penalty,” and “martial law” are in the Constitution.

            Well, of course, the terms are in the Constitution. But what is the context? Is violence against persons permitted? Is the death penalty allowed? Does martial law necessarily equate to violence?

            Finally, in Round 4, Andres makes that final statement on the reality of violence.

            Well, of course, violence exists. That is not the issue. The issue is whether violence the use of state-sponsored violence on drug personalities is morally and legally justifiable.

            And if there is no need to justify violence, why initiate or engage in a discussion at all?

            ***

            By Andres’ own admission, it appears that this forum, The Society, has been targetted by Duterte’s Internet trolls. I am of two minds about this. It means as NHerrera points out, that this forum is not an insignificant voice as it tries to clarify fast-moving events. But it also means having to contend with trolls who have no concern for real discussion and truth and are simply geared to promote — through ridiculous argumentation — lies and propaganda and confusion.
            *****

            • edgar lores says:

              *******
              Isn’t it funny that Andres’ final volley — that there is no need to justify violence — totally contradicts his original justification – that violence is the cure to its own disease?

              Does this remind you of someone who asserts and then retracts?
              *****

            • caliphman says:

              Edgar, it may be frustrating but not at all futile to lay out the reasoning for and against these opposing views. It may not make a whiff of difference to the hard core Duterte base who believe Tatay Duterte is always right or those who tend to question or criticize him because he is the antiChrist incarnate. Whether Andres or other Duterte apostles truly believe their comments or are mouthing reasons to convert others to subscribe to their views, I believe it is a giant step to engage in a civil discussion which aims to establish what should be believed based on the strength of arguments for and against. Too often, its whether the commenter is a Dutertard or supposed yellowtard that becomes the basis for credbility and how to respond to him. I believe there are enough visitors including from the Duterte base who are open enough to sift through the opposing arguments fairly or even if their views are unchanged might start weighing what Tatay Duterte says or does based on reasoned deliberation and not mainly their trust or faith in him. There are enough Duterte faithful who are discerning who may not be vocal in public but can be convinced by the soundness of the arguments made here. One should not expect as you say however that the latter if they are commissioned trolls will admit that their views are questionable or their arguments unconvincing. If one did, that would be an exceptional troll but someone worth respecting for his intellectual integrity.

              • NHerrera says:

                !!!

              • edgar lores says:

                *******
                Caliphman, thanks.
                *****

              • Andres10,000 says:

                Here we are again…

                “Violence is real, no need to justify.” This is in fact, a nice way of saying that I don’t feel like arguing anymore with Edgar about this violence, hence the phrase “..no need to justify.” Its like saying, stop violence if you want, if you can. Even if I will not justify the use of it, it will happen. What’s the meaning of more argumentation if Edgar already bomb me of not being truthful and not exercising due diligence? “…You are not being truthful and you are not exercising due diligence.” I think it is taboo to condemn someone here, no?

                But why did I justify it in the first place? Edgar ask me why is it a cure. And I reasoned it out, but he didn’t buy my reasoning. Maybe I didn’t find the right words or maybe there is no way that he will agree that it is a cure. But somewhere Edgar said, “One must distinguish between two kinds of violence. Arguably, Little Boy and Fat Man were defensive rather than offensive tools. Their use is morally justifiable in the same manner that self-defense is.” Edgar here is saying that Little Boy and Fat Man is morally justifiable as self-defense. Which, in fact he is already implying that violence (in the form of Little Boy and Fat Man) is morally justifiable. What is it you use for self-defense? VIOLENCE. With this, I am cool with Edgar. Use of violence, in self-defense, as implied by Edgar and agreed by me, is morally justifiable.

                Specifically, in our Constitution. Edgar said, “I clearly state that the “Constitution does not grant the use of violence.” By citing Section 12 of the Bill of Rights, I am specifically talking about the use of violence against “any person under investigation for the commission of an offence.” He stated that the non-use of violence is specifically intended for any person under investigation for the commission of an offence. Yes indeed, what more of making someone suffer if he is already in the grasp of government and still under investigation? But, what about those who are explicitly and on the act of committing crimes and roaming around trying to avoid justice? If Edgar could provide phrases in the Constitution not allowing any form of violence on this I would gladly believe in him that violence is all unconstitutional. Edgar said “Nor can it [meaning violence] be legally justified: the use of violence is unconstitutional. This point has not been rebutted.”

                By the above discussions, violence can be justified e.g. self-defense, war. It is constitutional, since the constitution does not absolutely and explicitly forbid it in all cases. Rather, the Constitution limits its use e.g. could not be use on any person under investigation. The Constitution allowed the use of it in certain circumstances. What is it that the Constitution allows the State to use in suppressing lawless violence, rebellion or invasion? Hint: Edgar mentioned two kinds of violence.

                The State has this inherent power called the police power. This power gives the state the capacity to regulate its inhabitants, and capacity to regulate means anything as long as it is for the betterment of the inhabitants in general. This police power is violent as can be with respect to the specific inhabitant, that’s why, the Constitution was there to safeguard the inhabitants on this Power of the State, and that’s why the Bill of Rights.

                To be more specific, the use of state-sponsored violence on drug personalities. It depends on what kind of violence and the scenario. My bet, you cannot use violence on person under investigation of an offense related to drugs. Under investigation here means being investigated if he or he may not have been involve. Other than this, violence whether or not you like it or not, is allowed. That’s why Duterte is not afraid to threaten them with death because there is no law that prohibit him to do so. With regards to those killed by vigilantes, it is not enough to condemned Duterte of inspiring killings, remember, the Police Power of the State. Duterte sponsored the vigilante killings, burden of proof, if proven lets go to the laws of the lands on what should be done.

              • chemrock says:

                Andres

                Sorry for interrupting. Thought i should clarify this point :
                “The State has this inherent power called the police power. This power gives the state the capacity to regulate its inhabitants, and capacity to regulate means anything as long as it is for the betterment of the inhabitants in general”.

                I think in a democratic country, the people collectively, through legislative institutions, set out the laws of governance. In other words, the laws regulate us, not the police. The police is only the executive arm of the state to oversee certain aspects of the laws are applied. Any time you have a country where the police regulates the people, it is known as a police state.

          • chemrock says:

            Thanks Caliphman, a voice of reason.

            I engaged Andres 10,000 because he has toned down from Andres version 1-4 and definitely more pleasant here.

            Regarding bilateral talks I agree with you it is another avenue to explore. However it is very dangerous to go into it without absolutely sure of what we want and what can be given away. I view Duterte’s refusal to even be interested in listening to Justice Caprio’s unsolicited presentation on the intricate legalities and pitfalls of diving into bilateral talks as a clear sign of his having made up his mind on behalf of Philippines, whatever that may be. The Beijing meeting was both business and state affairs. But we do not know if anything was given away, either in words or by implication. The worrisome part is we do not see any coherent ideas on the WPS issues other than indications of a willingness to trade islands for fishing rights and development assistance.

            • Andres10,000 says:

              Chem,

              Police power is inherent power of the State. Inherent means once a State is born it has already this power, no need for any Constitution or any legislation. It doesn’t mean that the police per se regulate us, it is the State itself that regulate its inhabitants for the purpose of general welfare. The State regulate us by using laws through its legislators, that’s why you said laws of governance, but actually the laws are just the means, it is really the State that do the regulations. Police power give the state this capacity to do anything as it sees fit to promote general welfare. It can even go to the point of killing anyone if this person present danger to the general welfare. And killing here may means killing in the most gruesome way to set example. That’s why, this fearsome police power should be limited, hence, the Constitution was created to protect us, citizens, the Bill of Rights. Along with the Constitution the different laws whose intentions are also to protect its citizens. Because of our Constitution the State could not absolutely exercise this police power, the State should respect due process.

              • chemrock says:

                Andres

                You are tying yourself in knots in your explanation, and contradictory at times I find some of your comprehension troubling

                1. You said once a state is born it has the inherent power to regulate people. How can this be? A state is an inorganic entity, it is a collective noun for all of us. In a mornachy of old, every thing belongs to the monarch, you and I, our cows and farms, all belong to the monarch. Absolute power is inherent in the monarch. In a republic, and modern day monarchy, we are our own masters. The state is just a term of no legal significance. Collectively we decide how we want to run our lives. So we have a body of people to run the show, we create institutions to compartmentalise functions, and we write laws on how things are to be run.

                2. Laws govern the way we behave, thus we can use your word ‘regulate’. We are regulated by laws.

                3. Now the state is inanimate.. So how can the laws that regulate us be implemented? its the institutions that oversees these laws. The police is just one of themthem, there are others. Eg BIR oversees tax laws

              • Andres10,000 says:

                Chem,

                May i ask, have you heard before this Inherent Powers of the State? Namely three, police power, eminent domain, and taxation. I learned it way back in college, so what i said to you about police power are my own words but the jest is there. Here, i google this for you so that you can hear it from someone, other than me.

                http://philgovernment.blogspot.com/2009/10/inherent-powers-of-government.html

                It will answer some of your questions. We can talk after you grasp the wisdom about these things. But it the link is general, you can google some more sources.

              • chemrock says:

                Andres

                You are tying yourself in knots in your explanation, and contradictory at times I find some of your comprehension troubling

                1. You said once a state is born it has the inherent power to regulate people. How can this be? A state is an inorganic entity, it is a collective noun for all of us. In a mornachy of old, every thing belongs to the monarch, you and I, our cows and farms, all belong to the monarch. Absolute power is inherent in the monarch. In a republic, and modern day monarchy, we are our own masters. The state is just a term of no legal significance. Collectively we decide how we want to run our lives. So we have a body of people to run the show, we create institutions to compartmentalise functions, and we write laws on how things are to be run.

                2. Laws govern the way we behave, thus we can use your word ‘regulate’. We are regulated by laws.

                3. Now the state is inanimate.. So how can the laws that regulate us be implemented? its the institutions that oversees these laws. The police is just one of them, there are others like BIR that oversees tax laws.

                4. These institutions are the executive arm of the respective laws. And what are the laws the police oversee? Criminal laws. Before we tell the police to go out and apprehend criminals, we have to establish what are the crimes. So we have the Penal Codes.

                5. And we just cannot let loose the police to do their jobs. For both ours and policemen’s protection, we have to establish how they should go about doing it. So we came up with the Criminal Procedures Code.

                6. Thus you are wrong to say the laws are just the means, its the state through the police that regulates us. It is the reverse.

                7. You said gruesome killing is to set example. Please try to comprehend the police is not judge and executioner. Shoot or kill on sight is murder on the part of police. There are rules of engagement the needs to be complied. More importantly, any sentencing by the courts is punishment within the bounds of the law. Never is there a sentence to set examples. Your comprehension is very troubling, and its a nightmare playing out in the streets right now. And that is the simple message that Joe is trying to convey because many people such as you are locked into what is being parleyed in public by certain quarters, instead of believing in your own laws.

              • Andres10,000 says:

                Chem,

                Here, most comprehensive discussions.

                http://habeas-freespeech.blogspot.com/2011/05/three-inherent-powers-of-state.html

                Enough with that comprehension is troubling thingy, we are sailing different boats.

              • chemrock says:

                Thanks for the link. Will look up and revert later.

                Just another point I missedvout. I’m not quite sure the idea of Constitution has anything to do with this argument. Constitution is quite something else. You referred to absolute power of the police, that’s frightening, because there is no such thing. You mentioned Constitution and Bill of Rights as what’s curtailing police power. I’m saying police has no ‘power’ as such. No police can sag hey you are a drug addict, and just apprehend you. Police works within the parameters set in the Penal Code and Criminal Procedures Code.

                It’s not just you that’s not comprehending, it’s policemen themselves. Let MD give one simple realife example. Our staff had a problem with a homeowner who brought a policemen into what was essentially a civil matter, a debtor-creditor shout out. The homeowner instructed, yes instructed, the policeman to apprehend our staff. Our girl spent two nights in lock up before we paid representation for her freedom
                See where comprehension of laws can lead to? This is what’s happening all over Philippines.

              • Andres10,000 says:

                Yes, the Constitution has a major part in it, it is it that limits this power. No, the police themselves has no absolute power. Actually, its the congress that holds that power, shared by the executive branch.

                With regards to the real life situation, i think better ask a lawyer.

            • caliphman says:

              http://globalnation.inquirer.net/148097/philippines-rejects-china-language-in-scarborough-proposal

              Chem, if what Inquirer recounts about what China initially pitched to Duterte and his delegation about fishing in Scarborough is true, then it appears that the Philippines rightly stood their ground and was unwilling give up neither its claim on Scarborough nor recognition of its unshared EEZ and rights to fish in Panatag waters. Duterte and his staff may appear amateurish because they are, and quite unfocused and incomprehensible in their strategy because of their leader’s personlity and impulsive style. Still, even if his reasons for his policies are questionable, among the blunders are decisions which in retrospect makes sense. For instance, a bilateral approach seems more appropos because it allows tailored solutions that address China and the Philippines unique situation without impacting disputes involving China and other neighbors. At Scarborough, the main issues are fishing rights and territorial sovereignty. As I mentioned before, shared fishing was the practice even if the issue of sovereignty was unresolved. Unfortunately there was a series of unpleasant incidents with Philippine patrol vessels confronting Chinese fishing boats leading to a standoff with the bigger, powerful, and more plentiful coast guard cutters sent by China to protect their fishermen. The Aquino admiinistration launched a two prong approach involving Trillanes as a direct presidential emissary sent to deescalate the standoff quietly while DFA resorted to a more international, multilateral and legal approach. The Chinese decided that they would keep their cutters at Scarborough while the Philippines withdrew theirs thinking a firm agreement had been reached. The overall net result is a Hague ruling that legally invalidates China’s claim of sovereignty over the seas around the naturally submerged reefs it disputes with Vietnam, Indonesia, Taiwan, etc.and the Philippines including those waters covered by their 9-dash claim. Duterte probably made the correct call that China may consider it best interest not to be seen as an international outlaw and bully as long as it is not seen as ceding its claims of sovereignty. China is like the US being another geopolitical, economic and trading giant and prizes a lawful, friendly and peaceful image as much as the prosperity and increased business opportunities this usually brings. It is likely that a de facto demilitarized and shared fishing zone without a detailed agreement will emerge at Scarborough as the sovereignty issues entailed in such a document cannot and perhaps should not be resolved for the moment. Again Duterte should receive credit in letting China make the first move on fishing access and discussing ,or not, the Hague ruling since by having ratified the UNCLOS treaty it puts their claims vis-a-vis the 9-dash line and EEZ’s established by their contested reefs in a very tenuous legal position. Having said all this, I have no problem in cheering Duterte on in realizing his objectives, its just his choice of process or lack of one that makes me very nervous!

              • NHerrera says:

                If I may: very nicely said, caliphman. Taking into consideration what has transpired up to the Hague Ruling, there is that big element of “Saving Face” here and what Duterte did achieved that in some measure.

                You mentioned the element of choice of, or lack of, process and we rightly should be concerned. But I believe that that item and the matter of off-putting the US and the UN makes the Saving Face of China the sweeter (something that may not really result in the de-linking with the US even in military terms given the now 2-year tenor). Subject to some diplomatic language massage other than “allowing or permitting” the fishermen access to the rich fishing grounds in the Scarborough Shoal, if the Filipinos will once more have access to the fishing grounds makes for a nice demonstration of goodwill.

              • chemrock says:

                Bilateral talks and bilateral negotiations are completely different in nature. Heads of states, or even third party reps, may imitate talks which is basically melting ice and feelers. It may then lead to negotiations at which stage it’s handled by negotiators who have special expertise in this area. A loud mouth prone to knee jerk reactions and expletives is a negotiation killer.

                As to negotiations, duterte’s inexperience has been glaringly displayed. He has given away all his chips. Through his utterances he has basically showed his hands to the opposing party. The incompetence is incomprehensible.

                When it comes down to negotiations with China, all the finer points of law that Justice Caprio volunteered are absolutely critical, but it seems to have been disregarded. I-know-better peacock started its stuff.

                Whilst bilateral talk has it’s benefits, shouldn’t we consider the other claimants? Leaving Taiwan, Vietnam, Brunei, and Malaysia out in the cold is simply creating future problems.

                An honest account of what actually transpired in Beijing hasn’t been forthcoming. Under the circumstances, it seems more prudent to withhold giving credit.

              • chemrock says:

                Imitate s/b initiate

              • caliphman says:

                Manong, you took the words out of my mouth or keyboard, which is not used to spewing so much verbiage here, as it were by writing about the facesaving that is required for any deal to be acceptable. This applies to China which has a giant face to save. Unlike its tiny neighbor North Korea which is isolated and almost globally hated and considered a rogue state throughout the world. China is after all Asian and it has to worry about its face to those states it wants or needs to do business with. One must not forget its self-image which its Xi and its current politburo leadership is concerned with in order to stay in power and that is why the issue of sovereignty is so crucial as this was the agenda the current crop of leaders rose to power on.

                Chem, I am no admirer or fan of Duterte since the very beginning. I continue to be shit scared of him as president as he seems to channel the rule, style, and personality of the Kim dynasty of North Korea. Maybe he has not yet threatened to use dogs or anti-aircraft weapons to rip de Lima and his political enemies apartment but he acts mad enough at times like he very well could. But whether we like him or not, whether we should give him full credit for any of his accomplishments or not, whether he and we were just lucky, at the end of the day its the end result that counts. I say the Philippines should publicly praise and condemn the results that are good with the bad. I just pray for a lucky streak and lack of national cataclysms during these period of scary uncertainty.

                As for abandoning any multilateral commitments to other Asian neighbors facing China with similar territorial disputes, I believe as before the best foreign policy for the Philippines is one that is based on its national interest. The country has done enough for these neighbors insecuring the Hague ruling and securing the legality of their EEZ’s and the lack of it in China’s 9-dash claim. That it is better to be friends or at least neutral with ones neighbors so long as one can achieve whats best for the country without losing one’s selfrespect or sovereignty is true for the Philippines, China, the US and its regional neighbors. It does means sometimes only a bilatetal approach is workable in specific situations as in Scarborough, as risky and nationally embarassing as such an approach is in having Duterte leading it.

              • edgar lores says:

                *******
                Caliphman,

                If at the end of the day, it is results that count, let us not forget that during the day it is methods that count as well.

                The credit for the return of Filipino fishermen to the Scarborough fishing grounds may be rightly attributed to the kowtowing tactics of Duterte. But equal, if not primary, credit should be extended to the unbending strategy of PNoy.

                As you noted, the Hague ruling invalidated China’s preposterous claims to the West Philippines Sea.

                If Duterte unlocked the door, PNoy provided the key.
                *****

              • I would add that, in the absence of a Chinese statement announcing a removal of presence from the shoal, it can be taken as cosmetic or temporary to achieve a near-term goal, empowerment of President Duterte. It is a form of political play or a continuation of Chinese meddling in Philippine domestic politics, something that appears to have begun during the campaign period in violation of election law.

              • chemrock says:

                I agree with Joe. A clear statement would have been very welcoming. In the absence of one, it’s all just plane gaming and nobody is any wiser as to each other’s intent, least of all, the Filipino people. Some are calling him a hero, others say possibly treason has been committed.

                Through ancient times of internal warring states, of warring kingdoms, seen through epics like Romance of the Three Kingdoms ( it was during this period I think, that Sun Tzi penned the Art of War) the Chinese are adapt in manouevouring and navigating situations of state conflicts. Every move is a calculated one with nuances well understood. The withdrawal of Chinese naval vessels from Scarborough is not a simple case of allowing Filipino fishermen back to the area to fish. It is the Chinese allowing duterte to be seen in the eyes of Filipinos to have scored a big victory. Help build political capital for someone who is viewed as more amenable to their objectives in WPS, pour in project fundings, and make fisherfolks happy and all but oblivious to Chinese motives, that’s called softening the ground for when it comes to negotiations. As far as 9 dash lines and the islands are concerned, the Chinese has not weakened their position in any way. They have given Duterte an empty victory. Everybody’s happy and patting each other’s shoulders.

                Yes, a clear statement would have been good. We have seen this admin tends to shoot first, then explain and re-explain themselves, and hasn’t been much transparent. So was anything been given away in exchange for all those funding promises? Were some of those deals, er MOUs, come with the satisfaction of some personal interests? What’s your confidence level when deals are populated with the likes of ZTE and a company banned by World Bank. If something was given away, then it was actually a pyrrhic victory.

                I would give credit if I seen a statement that says something like ” both parties have agreed to discuss the WPS issues at some other times, but in the meantime both have agreed not to further jeopardize the livelihood of fisherfolks. For this purpose the Scarborough seas will be open to fishing again without intimidation by either parties”.

            • chemrock says:

              Andres

              Re inherent police power of the state

              I’ve had a chance to read up a bit on this. I think we are on the same page but we approach it differently

              I’m more from UK legal grounding whereas the idea of inherent police power has morings in the US context, of which Philippines draws extensively.

              You have looked at it and argued more from the conceptual angle, whilst I was relating more on the specifics. In other words I was relating to enabling laws like Penal Code and Criminal Procedures Code. One thing is for sure, there is no absolute police power. If there were, then there would be no such thing as EJK.

      • Andres10,000 says:

        Thanks for that clarification, damn Inquirer they are saying like “UN Arbitral Tribunal.” Chinese is not, and will not be our new big bother. Ah, P.R.D. looks like kissing the Chinese ass? Thats how you get their monies, but we will pay it back so we are not completely the bad guy. You know, when this guy meets this girl and he said “You are so beautiful!” but actually she is just average.

        • karlgarcia says:

          So Duterte is The Diplomat that he does not want to be called, afterall.
          I will give him that, but I will never call him a statesman.

    • Waray-Waray says:

      To add on Chemrock’s 2nd rebuttal: Andres maybe you haven’t read or heard about the Nicaragua Approach. I believe that is what Chemrock is talking about.

      And to the third rebuttal: “Diplomatic option requires great salesmanship and takes a long time to work out”.

      Would you agree that there is no shortcut to this? If you believe that the president’s impulsiveness equates to decisiveness then our country is in for a big mess. This early foreign relations I would say would be one of the president’s Achilles heels.

  11. I wonder what these men have to say about blind faith…

  12. madlanglupa says:

    This is something what I observed for long even before he won the seat of power. That in this part of the world, belief, faith and superstition overrides everything else including knowledge and logic, that any sort of attempt at explaining how and why becomes a futile gesture, lest some act of God, signs of His outraged displeasure, grave betrayal, or personal tragedy would suddenly shake them out of their torpor.

    On Facebook and other social media, we have noticed that his most fanatical supporters also happen to be frequently sharing Christian memes beseeching about love and faith, who profess that they go to church or Bible meetings, but then also demonizing what are seen as threats to their “faith”. These are the people who think in black and white, that their faith is the only overriding education they have, more than secular education they learned in school, that in their belief system, drug-consuming heretics must burn in hell, and that the executioners and the purifiers shall be blessed and deemed worthy of heaven… these believers — supremacists, really — are suddenly no more different from other visible religious fanatics who demand absolutism.

    Oh, whoever was his chief propagandist throughout between accepting the nomination to now, he would’ve earned the admiration of a Goebbels, the blind faith now useful as a distraction, a convenience for a few select cronies who are itching right now to gain huge profits from joint projects with questionable corporations.

    As for my position in this world, I’m standing my ground here. Exile or asylum is not an option. Laughing at your enemy, or making light humor out of an otherwise grim situation… is something good to gain strength from, even in the darkest times.

    • edgar lores says:

      *******
      Madlanglupa,

      Bingo.

      A case in point, Andres10,000 argumentation on the war on drugs.

      1. He starts off well enough by laying the logical foundation thus:

      “The faithful agree to the necessary elimination of threats to social well-being caused by drugs and crime.”

      1.1. My quibble is in the use of the word “elimination.” While men are sinful, drugs and crime cannot be totally eliminated but it can be reduced.

      2. Then he slides off the logical foundation and injects what you call the supremacist attitude:

      “The faithful also know some critics want the same and the faithful are cool with that.”

      2.1. The use of the word “cool” is the first show of the largely emotional stance, and it is condescending. As if critics need the approval of the faithful.

      3. Then he falls off the logical cliff entirely and goes for the emotional attack:

      “The faithful also know that there are bastards using this human rights violation thing to oust our Daddy D.”

      3.1. The critics who uphold human rights are no longer “cool.” They are, in fact, bastards.

      3.2. The use of the familiar and affectionate “Daddy D” encapsulates 3 of the 7 passions of fascism that I enumerated in “The Anatomy of Fascism in Duterte’s World:” (a) the passion of brotherhood; (b) the passion of belonging: and (c) the passion of a male leader.

      4. Then a strawman fallacy is introduced:

      “For the sake of due process if your keen (sic) is murdered file a case. What the flying duck, the PNP told the senate investigators that only 22 cases was (sic) filed out of the 1500 murders within the first two months of the drug war. The faithful believe that those killings, outside of police operations, are done by some shitheads who want their identities hidden because they are involve (sic).”

      4.1. Let us ignore, as we usually do here in The Society, the orthographical and grammatical errors.

      4.2. This is a logical attempt — at last! — to address the human rights and due process issue. However, it is a strawman argument because it shifts the burden of observing due process from the State to the victim’s family.

      4.3. Human rights and due process are established in the Constitution. It mostly falls upon the state to respect and observe these foundational rules of law in the Constitution.

      5. Then we have confusion:

      “The faithful believe in violence as a cure, as it is a disease.”

      5.1. What does “it” refer to?

      5.1.1. If the context is the sentence, “it” must refer to violence itself. But if violence is a disease, how can it be a cure?

      5.1.2. If the context is the previous sentence, “it” must refer to “those killings,” specifically the 22 cases cited in the sentence before that.

      5.1.3. But, no, we must go back one more sentence — that is 3 sentences deep — and deduce that “it” refers to “due process.”

      5.1.4. Needless to say, the passion for exclusionary violence is a hallmark of fascism.

      5.1.5. The Constitution does not grant the use of violence. (Refer to item (2), Section 12 of the Bill of Rights.)

      5.1.6. And if due process is a disease, why is it enshrined in the Constitution? (Refer to Section 1 of the Bill of Rights.) And has Duterte not sworn to uphold the Constitution?

      6. And, finally, we have the devil quoting Scripture:

      “Take this verse from the Book of Luke “But as for these enemies of mine who didn’t want me to be their king—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence!” Jesus said this.”

      6.1. In context, the verse is not a direct quote from Jesus. Jesus is recounting a parable — that of the ten minas — and he is quoting the words of a man of noble birth who has become king. The message of the parable seems to be that the kingdom of God is not at hand… but when the kingdom does arrive, those who did not use their god-given talents wisely will NOT have eternal life.

      6.2. The analogy does not work. The Bible is full of contradictions, and the parable runs counter to the Two Greatest Commandments of Jesus. Even so, we are not a theocracy, and Christian precepts cannot be taken as law… unless they have been integrated and codified into the body of law.

      6.3. Duterte is NOT king, and we are not a monarchy. The democratic Constitution does not grant him the power of life and death over the sovereign people, in whole or in part.

      ***

      Note to @Niteowl: Where is the confusion?
      *****

      • karlgarcia says:

        4.1

      • chemrock says:

        Thanks Edgar, I’m still learning the way you enumerate logic flows.

      • Andres10,000 says:

        The points are awesomely articulated. Sorry for bad english, we should persuade Mr. Gabunaga to give us good english lessons.

        “3.1. The critics who uphold human rights are no longer “cool.” They are, in fact, bastards.” – The critics who uphold human rights are actually “cool.” and not “bastards.” Those who use it to strip down the Great Leader are the uncool and the bastards.

        “5.1.1. If the context is the sentence, “it” must refer to violence itself. But if violence is a disease, how can it be a cure?”
        – it refers to violence. It is a cure if you use it to stop more violence. e.g. “Little Boy” and “Fat Man.”

        “6.2. The analogy does not work. The Bible is full of contradictions, and the parable runs counter to the Two Greatest Commandments of Jesus. Even so, we are not a theocracy, and Christian precepts cannot be taken as law… unless they have been integrated and codified into the body of law.”
        – Yeah, the Bible is full of contradictions. When God said you shall not kill, but then he said kill those Palestinians, their men, women and children. It is just the concept of good and evil is forever changing as human society evolve.

        “6.3. Duterte is NOT king, and we are not a monarchy. The democratic Constitution does not grant him the power of life and death over the sovereign people, in whole or in part.”
        – Yes he is not King. He is the President. And when death penalty is on, he will be the one to push the death button i think.

        • Andres10,000 says:

          Edit. “Gabunada” instead. Oh hollly, i murdered someone.

        • edgar lores says:

          *******
          Ah, a response, but not really a rebuttal.

          3.1. Just a clarification on who are uncool and bastards. Not why they are uncool and bastards.

          5.2. Again, just another clarification. But the incorrect and inhumane reasoning remains.

          o The primary lesson to be learned from Little Boy and Fat Man is that violence should not be used at all… because violence begets violence. It is a cycle that once started is almost next to impossible to stop. Therefore, in the first place, Japan should not have gone to war.

          o One must distinguish between two kinds of violence. Arguably, Little Boy and Fat Man were defensive rather than offensive tools. Their use is morally justifiable in the same manner that self-defense is.

          o However, the use of state violence to “solve” the drug problem has proved to be ineffective in other countries. And because this is so and because drug personalities do not pose an immediate danger to life and limb, the state-sponsored violence of Duterte cannot be morally justified.

          o Nor can it be legally justified: the use of violence is unconstitutional. This point has not been rebutted.

          o The climate of violence has loosened the moral constraints of the entire nation. Killing is seen as normal and human life is as cheap as can be. The harmful effect on the youth cannot be calculated or predicted.

          6.2. It is true moral norms change, but they are being refined. The vengeful God of the Old Testament has been replaced by the kind, loving God of the New Testament. In the arc of history, the refinement is to make less use of violence and to arrive “at the better angels of our nature.” (Refer to Steven Pinker’s book.) Duterte is an atavist.

          6.3. Duterte has already pushed the death button without any constitutional say-so. Thus, he can be charged with crimes against humanity.
          *****

          • Andres10,000 says:

            Edgar,

            3.1. They are uncool and bastards because they are using EJKs with malice, with the purpose of implicating Tatay Digong. Their ultimate goal is to remove Tatay from office. [Solved. They could not prove anything against Tatay on Senate prove. Tatay stays to do his work again, without hindrance.]

            5.2. Yes, violence begets violence that’s why I said it is a disease. It is a cycle that can be stop only with more violence, that’s why the cure. Japan could not match the violence brought about by Little Boy and Fat Man, that’s why they lost, and the cycle halted there. Defensive or offensive still violence.

            Drug personalities do not pose an immediate danger to life, that’s why the government accepted those who surrendered. Those who resisted arrest and chose to fight pose imminent danger to the police, that’s why death was on them. Those who died innocently will have their perpetrators prosecuted.

            The use of violence is in the constitution. Death penalty, martial law, are violence in itself or agents of it. The constitution provide for it in certain circumstances, the use of it is constitutional.

            The climate of violence depends on the perception of someone, his status, his experiences. Seeing killing as normal and human life is cheap is no other than an opinion, someone else see it differently. You don’t need to be rebutted of your opinion.

            You can refine the moral norms, which as you said, by making less use of violence, but you cannot completely erase violence. That’s why, as you see it now, if you call it, violence is in front of you. It seems humans never really use less of violence, it changes its face.

            6.3. Duterte pushes the death button with his mouth, not with pen and ink.

            • edgar lores says:

              *******
              3.1 Sorry, don’t buy your fable.

              5.2. Sorry, don’t buy your:

              o Justification of violence.
              o Explanation of “nanlaban”.
              o The lie that the imposition of the death penalty is provided for in the Constitution.
              o The lie that martial law equates to violence.
              o Non-professional assessment on the impact of a climate of violence on children. Suggest you google “impact of violence on the community.”
              o Denial of the arc of history

              6.3. Aha! an admission Duterte encourages killing through his mouth.

              This is my last riposte. You are not being truthful and you are not exercising due diligence.
              *****

              • Andres10,000 says:

                3.1. I am not selling it.

                5.2.1. Violence is real, no need to justify.
                5.2.2. File a case.
                5.2.3. It is in it, you can reread our own Constitution. Google if you dont have the book.
                5.2.4. You are correct, thats why i said “agent of..”
                5.2.5. I am a non professional. I am googling almost everything.
                5.2.6. I denied nothing.

                6.3. Is it nto obvious? The “kill” words?

                I call it a day then.

              • edgar lores says:

                *******
                This is for readers. On 5.2.3, this is what the Constitution says on the death penalty:

                “…Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
                involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it.” [Bolding mine.]

                Currently, the death penalty has not been reinstated. Duterte, of course, wants it to be reinstated.
                *****

              • Andres10,000 says:

                You pointed out the general rule, i pointed out the exception. It started with “unless…”. Take note of my previous statement with “..it in certain circumstances.” It is not a lie that it is in there.

              • edgar lores says:

                *******
                Again to readers. My statement was:

                o The lie that the imposition of the death penalty is provided for in the Constitution.
                *****

    • NHerrera says:

      Reviewing the comments this morning and after seeing the Andres and Niteowl comments posted last night, I expected some big guns — not the biggest, that is probably reserved for some future use — will be utilized in reply; and use they were. Thanks Andres, Niteowl and TSH regulars with your argument-guns — very lively read as I drink my coffee.

      I just want to add this minor observation: we have here at TSH commenters from DDS, Duterte Diehard Supporters. There is a spectrum of DDS here:

      Andres10,000, Niteowl <<< Ybarra Crisostomo

      Kinda miss YC already. None yet from him in the current blog I understand.

      • Ybarra Crisostomo says:

        What more can I say? The author advocates knowledge, but he speaks beyond and more than that. He speaks of emotions of faith and hope.

        *YC on vacation, should not reply but name was called, so…*

  13. Juana Pilipinas says:

    The narration by Bruce Springsteen as a prefix to his song “WAR” (War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!) :

    “If you grew up in the 60’s, you grew up with war on TV every night. A war that your friends were involved in. And I want to do this song tonight for all the young people out there. If you’re in your teens because I remember a lot of my friends when they we were 17 or 18.We didn’t have much of a chance to think about how we felt about a lot of things. And the next time they’re gonna be looking at you. And you’re gonna need a lot of information to know what you’re gonna wanna do.
    Because in 1985, BLIND FAITH IN YOUR LEADERS, OR IN ANYTHING, WILL GET YOU KILLED.”

    Version that is apropos to PH youth :

    “If you are growing up in 2016, you are growing up with DRUG WAR on TV every night. A war that ALL FILIPINOS are involved in. And I want to do this song tonight for all the young people out there. If you’re in your teens because I remember a lot of my friends when they we were 17 or 18. We didn’t have much of a chance to think about how we felt about a lot of things. And the next time they’re gonna be looking at you. And you’re gonna need a lot of information to know what you’re gonna wanna do. Because in 2016, BLIND FAITH IN YOUR LEADERS, OR IN ANYTHING, WILL GET YOU KILLED.”

  14. cha says:

    Blind faith is one way of looking at it.

    From a psychocultural angle, one can also attribute it to a particular state of mind or view of oneself in relation to those around him or what those with some familiarity with concepts and theories of psychology will know as an ego state. An ego state refers to a consistent pattern of thinking, feeling and behaving that an individual draws from in varying degrees and in response to different life situations. We all shift from one to another, i.e. from Parent, Adult and Child ego states.

    Each ego state serves its own purpose and enables us, for the most part, to effectively interact with other people. Ideally, we should be able to channel the proper ego state called for in any given situation. Like be the “Parent” that nurtures or corrects our children or those looking to us for guidance in this world so they become responsible and productive members of society themselves. Or we can also be the “Adult” that is able to assess a situation rationally and act accordingly so the day to day problems we face are resolved satisfactorily.

    Unfortunately, in our Filipino culture, we grow up with very little encouragement and training that can enable us to operate from an Adult ego state. We grow up sheltered, protected and dependent on the attentive and loving arms of our parents and other grow-ups. Either that or we also are criticised, castigated, told off day in and day out of how we are such a disappointment, of how we are not good enough and how only the Parents (the grown-ups, those with authority and power over us, those “bigger” than us) are always right. All the time.

    Hardly anyone really is able to show us how to interact with each other as equal, co-dependent and rational human beings.

    And this is the situation we find ourselves in now. Duterte is exactly the Parent his followers can relate with, the kind of looming presence that they have been brought up to depend on, to believe in without question. His followers and supporters are stuck in their child ego state when and where Duterte is concerned. They act up, throw tantrums and attack those who pose a threat to the parent’s well-being, instead of processing what is going on around them and seeking answers or solutions to their real problems.

    Faith in Duterte is faith in the parent construct. The children have come to him. And the kingdom now belongs to them.

    • That sense of ownership expressed in that last line is a wake up call, for me, at least. I had recognized it as hope, something not here yet. You characterize it as ‘victory’. That will be even harder to unwind. Hope is malleable. Victory is set in cement. You have just explained the peculiar blindness we can see, the stubborn justification of bad deeds. Thanks for that awareness. Powerful.

    • edgar lores says:

      *******
      Cha, thanks for the technical perspective. In my terms, Filipinos have not largely “individuated” and have not arisen from their “conditioning.” And they are not largely self-reliant as adults must be.
      *****

      • not even Duterte is independent – he has just moved from Uncle Sam to Uncle Xi.

        submissiveness to those ‘higher’, dominance to the ‘lower’ is the prevailing pattern. Inculcated by upbringing – ‘elders’ are always right even if they are wrong.

    • NHerrera says:

      Cha, thanks for your post. Aside from the psychological perspective, there is another element which we cannot discount. These DDS — Duterte Diehard Supporters, I mean, although it can also include the original DDS — are not fired-up only by the psychological mindset you describe, but that they are nurtured, greatly encouraged, I am not saying paid, to act the way they do. Something we already know, of course.

      • NHerrera says:

        Forgot to say “recruited.”

        nurtured, greatly encouraged = recruited/ nurtured/ greatly encouraged (in the and/or sense)

  15. NHerrera says:

    THE MOVES TO CHINA AND AGAINST THE US — TRYING TO MAKE SENSE TO MYSELF

    1.0 The moves were either
    1.1 Deliberate and planned, or its complement
    1.2 Not Deliberate and planned

    2.0 Take the case of the moves being deliberate and planned. This is plausibly supported
    2.1 By a trip of Duterte and his Lieutenant Bong Go as early as November 2014 as published in the latter’s Facebook
    2.2 By other accounts showing the many meetings by Duterte and his other Lieutenants with the Chinese — officials or not — including visits to China during the election period and those done before Duterte was sworn to office.

    3.0 The case of the moves not being deliberate and planned is weaker, to my mind, but may be plausibly explained
    3.1 By now admitted fact, that he was not granted US Visa at one time
    3.2 That the US Ambassador, then Obama, among other US officials while supporting Duterte’s War on Drugs, criticized his handling of the war because of possible human rights violation by the mere examination of the numbers involved in the deaths and the circumstances of the deaths
    3.3 That human rights was also violated in Mindanao in the Pre-Independence Badjao massacre.
    3.3 Much use was made by Duterte and his Communication Group of charting an Independent Foreign Policy, no big deal really, since even the Constitution requires that.

    4.0 It is plausible too that the enumerated Items in 3.0 only reinforces the case of Deliberate and Planned moves and used as smoke screen to the planned moves. The expletives were used to further embellish the smoke screen. He is more intelligent than what he and his lieutenants like to portray him. Even the chewing gum — much as I believe, he likes to do (I enjoy the taste of Spearmint myself) and his fashion sense — when done before the foreign officialdom is a put on for the folks back home, DDS: the diehards.

    5.0 Now, I believe, there is the search for more Shock items — not the Awe anymore, much as the Admin wants that — or deflecting/ distraction items to keep him relevant or the momentum going. I propose, we view Duterte’s statements and moves through a prism so we can better understand him. (At least, that is what I intend to do.)

    6.0 I change my feelings: I believe the New Faith will not last long.

    • “6.0 I change my feelings”

      I second emotion (second the motion)

    • edgar lores says:

      *******
      1. We thought that Binay was Plan A. Nah ah! Duterte was Plan A all along. He was the sleeper candidate ever since he was brainwashed by Joma in his university days.

      1.1. Pimentel and Cayetano were double agents, purportedly working for the US but, in actuality, deep cover agents for China.

      1.2. Bongbong was China’s fallback should Duterte die in office.

      2. Remember, Binay was a shoo-in. He had the election sewed up. He had led the pack for many months and had the national organization of sister towns and cities. But China was uncertain of his loyalties, which seemed to be only for himself and family, and they were wary of his predatory wife and children, who seemed too much like the Marcoses.

      3. So China egged their double agents — Pimentel and Cayetano and an unwitting Trillanes — to diminish Binay’s chances of winning through tough senate hearings.

      4. Then in the subsequent months of election time, China brilliantly raised Duterte’s profile using his sui generis macho image that resonated with needy, desperate women and needy, misogynistic men. They created suspenseful drama through the filing of candidacies — will he or won’t he run? — and through the campaign by chipping away at Duterte’s already rough edges and coarsening his larynx to greater incivility… so that he would stand apart from the feckless Roxas and the much diminished Binay.

      4.1. China understood the power of social media having suppressed and manipulated the cyber force for much of the Internet’s existence, and quietly sponsored Duterte’s digital army.

      4.2. Coincidentally, the US was wary of Binay and unhappy at Roxas’ chances of winning, so they quietly asked FVR to convince Duterte to run, thinking they could control the Mayor because they had the DDS goods on him. On his own, FVR was completely bamboozled by the Mayor.

      5. So, for America, the battle for the South China Sea too had been won because of the favorable arbitral tribunal railing. All they had to do now was to provide Duterte with a jet-ski. And so too, for China, the battle had been practically won with Duterte on a tight leash, panting and salivating for Made-in-China toy trains. Both superpowers thought they had won without a shot being fired.

      6. Unknown to both superpowers, they both had lost. For Duterte’s sole mendicant interest was to get developmental plans and funds for the poor country, funds that his burgeoning brigade of cronies will stash away. And unknown to both superpowers, Duterte is an addict… a gum-chewing addict.

      6.1. Unknown to him, Duterte might lose too. People see through his tough act and wayward ways. China will provide inferior goods that Filipinos, true to their nature, will be unable to maintain. The US will stay away until invited. Only Japan will remain a steadfast friend.

      O rise ye land of happy fools!
      *****

      • NHerrera says:

        edgar,

        Good Plot … er Plan.

        Re inferior products, what tablet, laptop, smartphone do you use? It may be an apple product. But did you check the underside?

        OF COURSE, it is a quite another matter if the Chinese begins to bring products or materials in fulfillment of a Philippine-Chinese Contract funded by Chinese loans.

      • Andres10,000 says:

        But the God had spoken to Duterte, like with David. And David kill Goliath, the Giant. China is a giant. Duterte will kill China. Illuminati detected.

        • The God that spoke to Duterte on the plane from Japan seems to be exactly like him: “you stop doing that (cursing) or I will kill you (crash the plane) immediately” – seems his God is the one from the Old Testament, wrathful and vengeful.

          And in a way Duterte is like Moses – he is leading his people into the desert, he may have been on the mountaintop of Apo (but where are his Ten Commandments?) but he may not know where the Promised Land is. So instead of his sheep, anak lang tayong lahat ng tupa.

      • I hope the film version stars Tom Hanks as the Edgar Lores who puts it all together and saves the planet by discovering it was the Masons who have the key to making China turn gracious, thereby stopping all the skullduggery and manipulations so we can work on a right proper priority, stopping global warming and pollution and sunning on the fabulous Philippine beaches.

  16. Even in the FB world, it’s a numbers game…the paid trolls and bots working 24/7 managed to suppress the right to say something, the right to free speech which is a protected right…..it’s quite ironic that the FB account of the one who complained of Mocha’s DRUMS – Disinformation, Rumors, Untruths, Myths and Smears is the one closed by FB and not Mocha’s……

    http://www.rappler.com/…/150267-facebook-suspends…

    Repeated and retweeted often enough, DRUMS can pass for the truth to all but the most critical and analytical minds.

    http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/236403/confessions-of-a-troll/

  17. NHerrera says:

    Off topic

    This is how games among powers are played. Not through FOUL MOUTH.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/27/asia/china-japan-fighter-jet-intercepts/index.html

    ******
    The Chinese Air Force sent more than 40 aircraft to the West Pacific near the Japanese island of Okinawa in late September.

    (So Japanese intercept planes scrambled.)

    Japan’s Defense Ministry on Friday said its Self Defense Force follows international law when conducting intercepts.

    Wu said Japanese planes were using dangerous tactics during those intercepts.

    ******

  18. karlgarcia says:

    Hs next trip would be to Malaysia, the only other country that maters to him, until he decided that Indonesia should also be there, lndonesia whose leader Sukarno is the role model of Duterte, because he told uncle Sam to ho to hell and later sort of told long time colonizer the Netherlands to go to hell as well. They would be discussing piracy.

    • chemrock says:

      I’m sure he admires Soekarno. He orbits in the universe of strong personalities – Hitler, Xi, Putin, Xi, Chavez, Lee Juan Yes. But it’s a blind man’s view of strength – the alpha macho type. He can never see the real inner strength in people like Obama, Leni, Mother Theressa, or the millions of the mothers who scavenge in the gabbages throughout Philippines, with 3 little kids in tow. He admires Lee Juan Yew for the same toughie image that Lee exudes, not the tough sacrifices that Lee imposed on his people in pursuit of longer term national objectives.

  19. gerverg1885 says:

    How many times will he forget his own words if he really is in a state of mind that is not bordering on schizophrenia.? Or Alzheimer’s perhaps?

    I’m still wondering why his followers could not forget that he said then that the war on drugs would last for 6 months. Then asked for another 6 months after only more than 2 months. Then he said that he wants to kill 3 million addicts but the killings already slowed down.

    One thing is certain about those who still have deep faith in him which Frederick Nietzsche quoted about so matter-of-factly: “Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.”

    Or better yet, “In individuals, insanity is rare, but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.”

  20. Robbie Williams:”I sit and talk to God, but he just laughs at my plans.

    My head speaks a language I don’t understand.”

  21. NHerrera says:

    The picture I sketched below, is meant to ask the question whether there is a reasonable probability that what I term as Positive EMS based on

    – the result of the SWS and Pulse Asia Surveys; and

    – the positive COMPONENT of the engagement with China and Japan, including the positive component of the Illegal Drug War,

    will continue; or the Negative EMS relatively LOW in the beginning will gather momentum such as to crossover to that of the Positive EMS.

    Three cases:

    1. There will be no crossover. The initial moves/ actions, laced-with words that have partly lost its shock value, will undergo a welcome metamorphosis and continue its positive trajectory; and the Filipinos will achieve a good measure of happiness.

    2. There is a crossover at a time TC measured in Quarters of a year.
    2.1 Subcase A — Benign crossover and the consequent start of a new cycle
    2.2 Subcase B — Messy crossover and the consequent start of a new cycle

    3. There is a crossover at a time TC scaled in Years.
    3.1 Subcase A — Benign crossover and the consequent start of a new cycle
    3.2 Subcase B — Messy crossover and the consequent start of a new cycle

    My hope is that it will be the first case.

    • Sup says:

      Duterte don’t talk EMS, they talk quantum waves and particles to communicate orders from God.
      Hahahahaha 🙂

      Strange by the way that after 30 year close friendship Duterte did not recognize the voice of creepoloy

      https://rabashikarabakanda.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/pastor-quiboloy-admits-it-was-his-divine-voice-duterte-heard-in-plane/

    • chemrock says:

      NHerrera
      Nice chart. I think a prime factor will be GDP. Based on what I can see happening – spending spree (doubled salaries for AFP and PNP, tax cuts, SSS increases, golden years of IPs, etc) leads to deficit budgeting, more borrowings, decrease in US economic runoffs (ODAs, preferential tariffs), reduced FDIs due to perception of instability — all these can only mean one thing, GDP heading south.

      So if you draw a GDP line from the left with a decline towards the right cutting the 2 EMS curves at the same spot, such that +EMS = -EMS=GDP, then we will know the GDP at the time when SWS ratings show 50% support levels. Give or take a bit for delayed GDP data.

      What the heck do this show. Nothing great, except the relationship of GDP to happiness, and bragging rights to we-told-so.
      .

  22. Sup says:

    Tokyo—House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez is backing President Rodrigo Duterte’s proposal to require Americans visiting the Philippines to get visas, saying there should be reciprocity between the two countries.

    Alvarez said he wondered why the Philippines allows Americans to freely come to the country while Filipinos have to line up in the wee hours of the morning just to secure a US visa.
    ADVERTISEMENT

    “If they’re not willing to grant us the same privilege, we might as well also require their citizens coming to our country to apply for a visa,” Alvarez told reporters in Tokyo, where he joined Mr. Duterte who was on a three-day official visit to Japan.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Ok, so Americans can also now become dual citizen? Buying own lot? starting companies without 60% Filipino ownership etc etc..

    http://globalnation.inquirer.net/148291/visas-for-americans-speaker-echoes#ixzz4OUX5kYLJ

    • chemrock says:

      I said a long time ago, the danger of a leader like duterte is that it will spawn thousands of Little Dutertes. It has already come to pass. You see it in the Executive, in Congress and in the Senate. Even more frightening, it is spewing into the streets. Little Dutertes are all schooled in the art of parotting.

    • Ybarra Crisostomo says:

      Why not? If their hearts is that of a Filipino, they could become a citizen, and enjoy the benefits and responsibilities of a citizen, but after they met all the requirements. Don’t be so naive, that rule of Filipino majority in a domestic corporation is all but make-up. Layers and layers of parent-subsidiaries relationship with the ultimate parent as a multinational corporation is common practice.

    • The purpose of the statement is not to recognize the reasons for the differences, that the US has to limit visits because so many visitors want to stay in the country that they skip out on their visas (Filipinos in particular have a bad reputation for this), and the PH does not have that problem. The PH can’t even keep its own people here. But the whole point of the Alvarez argument is to continue to portray the US as the villain so that going with China seems to make sense.

      • caliphman says:

        That is so surreal and so unnecessary. What supports a presumption that closer relations with any country requires turning away from another country it has close relations with? I am not sure that except for this administration, Filipinos or the Philippines have a strong antipathy for China or its people and that this originates from traditionally close ties with the United States. That a consular and foreign policy should be based on Duterte’s personal animosity towards the US is the height of sycophancy by the speaker and manifests how the legislature no longer serves the interests of the Filipino people but that of the personal and political ambitions of its leaders.

        • Surreal, but the trolls and needful love the stuff. It is the intentional application of crab culture to support one’s political positioning. Make people villains by calling them villains, no matter the truth, and it becomes the truth because it acts as a salve to the stinging soul of the disenfranchised. Even if it was idiots like Alvarez who disenfranchised them, not Americans.

          • NHerrera says:

            Going with the flow, I see several items:

            First, without fanfare Duterte can merely ask DFA to study forthwith the reason for the asymmetry in Visa requirements of the two countries and recommend if necessary needed policy change on that matter. The act is of course obviously to impress the new BFF country and continue with his fixation on the US.

            Second, DFA guys heard the statement, and should be on the job, not guaranteed of course since Yasay cannot seem to decide on a lot of things — whether to ask the Big White Brother to stop treating us (really meaning him, not me) as little brown brother; or continue to protect his Green Card.

            Third, the initiative to do the needed staff work is DFA’s, Speaker Alvarez did not have to present another apple on Dear Teacher’s desk. He was doing a lot already, but obviously failed, to toast De Lima. So another apple is needed for the teacher.

    • Ybarra Crisostomo says:

      Those riding in tandem again. Congress should approve the death penalty already, look at the sentiment of the father, he want them killed.

  23. HighFive says:

    “And it places at risk the sea-based resources (fish and minerals)…”

    Off shore oil drilling in Cuba was put on hold not only once. If I remember correctly a couple of articles I read about it, (one was reported by reuters), geological complications was among the reasons why. I think it would be good for Philippines to consult the companies that attempted to drill the off-shore natural gas / oil in Cuba to make sure that environmental catastrophe would be avoided.

    In regards to drug problem being touted as the number 1 problem of the country. I don’t buy that. To prove my point, I haven’t heard of a drug user or small time drug peddler maintained millions of dollars account in several places overseas, and there are reports about this. I believe some of those who have millions deposited in banks abroad are people who commit plunder to the nation. Those who commit plunder made millions of Filipinos suffer in poverty. Huge portion of the population are poor or in extreme poverty. So I say the number 1 problem of the nation was caused by those who plundered the wealth of the nation.

  24. Gias Pora says:

    President Duterte is simply continuing how Filipinos have been trained by the Spaniards: to utilize the power of”faith”, or rather, “blind faith” to accomplish one’s goals. The only difference is that the Spaniards used it well for their empire, whilst we are still trying to figure out Duterte’s end-game.

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] via President Duterte: a matter of faith — The Society of Honor: the Philippines […]

  2. […] via President Duterte: a matter of faith — The Society of Honor: the Philippines […]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s