By Jun Bautista

The National Press Club (NPC) has decried lawyer Sigfried Fortun's decision to defend Datu Unsay Mayor Andal Ampatuan, Jr., suspect on the Maguindanao massacre that claimed the lives of 57 people, including 30 journalists. It is even reportedly contemplating on declaring Fortun as a persona non grata and banning him from attending all media events.

While the Maguindanao massacre should be condemned in the strongest possible terms, we must not let our emotions get the better part of us. However strong the evidence may be against Ampatuan, Jr., no less than our Constitution presumes his innocence until evidence to the contrary is proven. Due process requires that he be given his day in court, accorded a fair trial and only after evidence for or against his innocence is presented that he may validly be judged either innocent or guilty.

In the midst of all these substantive and procedural safeguards, Ampatuan, Jr. is entitled to competent legal representation. Fortun is merely performing his legal duty as an officer of the court whose oath requires him to defend any person accused of a crime. Instead of being condemned, Fortun should even be lauded for helping make the judicial system work and go about its business of dispensing justice. Imagine if no one would represent Ampatuan, Jr. Given the seriousness of the charges against him, it is highly unlikely that the court will proceed without him being represented by a lawyer, especially so that he has preferred to be represented by one. This will definitely not be good as trial will be postponed indefintely and consequently delay the victims' relatives' - including the NPC's - plea for justice.

What alternatives do the NPC and those people who condemn Fortun for defending Ampatuan, Jr. have? If Fortun is taken out of the picture, most assuredly someone will take his position if the trial against Ampatuan, Jr. were to proceed. If no one will voluntarily represent Ampatuan, Jr., the court trying the case will be forced to appoint someone. Now, will the NPC also decry and declare as persona non grata the person who will be appointed as new defense counsel? How about the judge who will appoint the lawyer, will she also be condemned considering that she will be instrumental in giving Ampatuan, Jr. someone who will defend him?

Perhaps we should just lynch Ampatuan, Jr. and strike-off from our Constitution and statutes book due process protections and abolish our courts altogether. I am not saying this is what the NPC wants as well as those oppose to Fortun and lawyers defending undesirable people, but come to think of it this is precisely the implication of not wanting accused people to be given their day in court and accorded competent legal representation.

Were the court to deny Ampatuan, Jr. his right to legal representation and force him to defend himself, aside from violating his constitutional right to have a counsel of his own choice, the court would be prejudging his guilt already, for why would the court refuse to deny such representation if not dictated by the conviction that he is guilty of the crimes charged against him? This is not the kind of court we would like to dispense justice for us.

To be sure, there is someone out there crying how could Fortun, or any lawyer for that matter, defend a monster like Ampatuan, Jr? Some people may not buy it, but it is not for the lawyer to judge his or her client; that is a matter for the court to decide. Unless we want to go back to the age of trial by ordeal - where a person's guilt or innocence is decided in strange ways, such as being pronounced innocent if a person submerged in water does not drown or guilty if he does, or innocent if the accused's hands heal within certain days after suffering injuries from being dipped in boiling water or being pronounced guilty if the accused loses in a duel - we have to settle to the fact that we now have a judicial system that allocates responsibilities to different participants for the purpose of painstakingly ascertaining the facts and circumstances of a case to determine who is innocent or guilty.

A criminal defense lawyer, like Fortun, performs the essential function of ensuring that a person is not unjustly accused and that only after proof beyond reasonable doubt is established may an accused person be adjudged guilty and penalized. In essence he represents the criminal justice system, as much as the public prosecutor does.

If justice were to be dispensed, Andal Ampatuan, Jr. - like any other suspect and without regard to his guilt or innocence - deserves to be represented by a competent counsel of his own choice. To borrow the words of US President Obama, there is no incompatibility between our safety and ideals. We must not throw away the legal protections provided by the Constitution in our quest for justice, however reprehensible the charges against an accused person are.

Having said the foregoing, it is hoped that Atty. Fortun will stand only by what is just, ethical and proper in proceeding with the defense of his client. While he is expected to exercise utmost zeal and dedication in the defense of his client, his oath also dictates that he should not delay the cause of justice and defend his client using only fair, honest and legally permissible means.

by Jesusa Bernardo

THIS week, December 19 to be specific, is the 110th anniversary of the death of Henry Ware Lawton, an American general after whom a landmark plaza in Manila, Philippines was named--Plaza Lawton.

As a young girl, I didn't exactly remember the place or its precise spot in Manila but my parents seemed to frequently mention it. My papa, in particular, made more than occasional references to "Lawton" or "Plaza Lawton," either as a destination, landmark or jeepney (public transport) route.

During my college years, I gave the etymology of the plaza some thought but didn't exactly bother to do real research. Back then, I just presumed that "Lawton" must be another of the numerous vestiges of pathetic (what else could it be?) colonial heritage. Lawton must be some American official who served in the Philippines. Perhaps a governor-general, military officer, or commissioner of some entity during the era of United States occupation of its former Southeast Asian colony.

As it turned out, I was partly correct. Plaza Lawton was named after Henry Ware Lawton, an American military general who did serve in the Philippines--but not exactly during the colonial era. Maj. Gen. Lawton served as a valiant, celebrated, determined agent-officer of American imperialistic expansion during the subjugation proper--the official (translation: US military viewpoint) duration of the Philippine-American hostilities. He would not be part of the American colonial era when the colonized natives had already been "pacified," which came some three or ten years later--depending on whose side is talking.

It's interesting to note that the name "Geronimo" was destined to play an important part of his military record--of Lawton's fame and death. Lawton was to be the bane of the Apache American Indian tribe and its leader Geronimo during the Geronimo Campaign of 1886.*

More than a later, during yet another mission of subjugation (US translation: pacification)--this time thousands of miles of land and ocean waters away from American soil--he would face another Geronimo in the person of Filipino general (US translation: "insurgent" leader) Licerio Geronimo.


Lawton's Military Exploits

Gen. Henry Ware Lawton is said to be one of the most celebrated American wartime heroes of his time. He was so respected and admired such that Fort Lawton in Washington and the city of Lawton in Oklahoma were named after him. He was "boy hero" of the American Civil War, earning the Medal of Honor for his leadership of a skirmish attack at Atlanta, Georgia.

Lawton is best remembered, however, for his pursuit of the near-mythical figure that was Geronimo and his American Apache Indian band. While Lawton was not actually able to capture Geronimo, his relentless search operations that included the use of Apache "scouts" (translation: Indian traitors) are credited for the Indian leader's eventual surrender to the US Army.

Promotions came easy for him after the 1886 Geronimo Campaign, rising to become brigadier general of volunteers during his stint in Cuba and later, as Major General. His military exploits covering four decades--the Civil War, American Indian Wars, Spanish-American War, and Philippine-American War--supposedly approached the level of fantastic such that his life has been a popular subject of contemporary journalism. While he is now faulted for certain flawed judgments during the war against the Spaniards and in Cuba, his trademark traits--dogged determination and fearlessness came in handy for the US missions.


Filipino-American War

The Philippine-American War was set in the context of the Filipino revolutionary energies being part-spent during the Revolution against Spanish colonial rule and of the voracious, newfound US appetite for imperial possessions in the Pacific (apart from Puerto Rico). The US had prevailed in the Spanish-American War, resulting to the December 1898 Treaty of Paris that, among other things, "ceded" the Philippines to the US for $20 million.

For a long time, the US military refused to admit to the fact of the Philippine-American War, referring to it merely as "insurrection." Apparently, the denial was designed to belittle the claims of groups in America which were opposed to the annexation of the Philippines.

At that time, the American public was becoming divided over the morality and wisdom of President William McKinley’s policy of colonization. The Anti-Imperialist League was formed and business baron Andrew Carnegie even offered $20 million to buy back the independence of the Filipinos, but was promptly rejected.

Under a Republican administration, the emerging international power that was the US wanted its people to believe that the acquisition of the Southeast Asian archipelago was not by deliberate design but merely an accidental consequence of the Paris accord. To rationalize his imperialistic plans for the islands, McKinley even went to the extent of claiming he heard the “voice of God” in a dream or something, leading to his decision that there was "nothing left for us to do but to take them all, to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and Christianize them."

The denial apparently also arose from the need of the US military to be in accord with the acquisition-via-Spanish-sale-of-the-Southeast-Asian-archipelago official policy for the Philippines. The Fil-Am War denial precludes a rather important point behind the outcome of the Spanish-American War--that the Filipino revolutionaries actually helped the US defeat Spain. This is a fact acknowledged no less by Senator William Jennings Bryan:

There can be no doubt that we accepted and utilized the services of the Filipinos [in the war against Spain], and that when we did so we had full knowledge that they were fighting for their own independence, and I submit that history furnishes no example of turpitude baser than ours if we now substitute our yoke for the Spanish yoke.

Lawton in the Philippines

Gen. Lawton was among the Civil War and American Indian war veterans assigned to secure US expansionist interest in the Philippines. He headed the 3,850-strong First Division consisting of two maneuver brigades, each of which was further composed of four or so battalions. He was responsible for the capture of the Filipino stronghold in Santa Cruz (April 9-10, 1899); Paete (April 12, 1899); and Zapote (June 13, 1899) in the war's second largest battle.

Tactics-wise, he was credited with the use and development of the indigenous Philippine scouts (translation: Filipino "Macabebe," etc. traitors) to contain the Filipino revolutionaries--who were fighting guerilla warfare in their own territory. The use of indigenous foot soldier scouts against their fellow natives who were resisting American domination is a crucial lesson learned by Lawton during the Indian Wars.

Unfortunately for Lawton, however, he was destined to become the most important American casualty of that turn-of-the-century war of colonial subjugation. On the morning of December 19, 1899, the American general led an assault termed the Battle of San Mateo in Montalban (now Rizal Province). The assault aimed to permanently cut the communication lines of the Filipino forces in the southern and northern portions of Luzon island.

The American general was boldly pacing the firing line on the San Mateo River’s west bank almost unmindful of the warnings given him by his soldiers when a bullet of a sharpshooting Filipino revolutionary pierced through his chest. Lawton died instantly. The US military's biggest single loss in the war.


Gen. Geronimo

Responsible for his death was the guerilla troop Tiradores de la Muerte (Marksmen of Death), which was ironically led by another "Geronimo"--Gen. Licerio Geronimo. The exact spot of the conflict, or at least part of it, is now within the jurisdiction of Quezon City in Metro Manila. A marker commemorating the Battle of San Mateo, which can be found at Brgy. Bagong Silangan, when translated into English reads:

On this spot on the morning of December 19, 1899 occurred a historic battle during the Filipino-American War between the forces of Licerio Geronimo, Division General of the Revolutionary Army of Rizal together with his band of marksmen called Tiradores de la Muerte and American forces led by Commanding General Henry W. Lawton that consisted of battalions from the 29th Infantry, 27th Infantry, and a cavalry and foot squadron from the 11th Cavalry. Killed during this battle faced by the forces of General Geronimo was General Lawton, one of the highest ranking American military officials during the Filipino-American War.

Who was the Filipino "Geronimo"? Gen. Geronimo was among the most valiant Filipino generals in the Philippine-American War. According to a National Historical Institute article:

Geronimo joined the Katipunan when [Andres] Bonifacio established a chapter in Montalban. When revolution [against Spain] broke out in 1896, Geronimo went to Balintawak on request of Bonifacio. On August 30 that same year, he was with the group that attacked San Juan del Monte...

“General Cerio” as he was fondly called became popular among the revolutionists because of his skills in combat. He triumphantly defended his post from the Spaniards and augmented ammunitions and supplies of the revolutionists by ambushing Spanish carts...

When the Philippine-American War broke out, Geronimo defended Marikina. He helped build trenches and reorganized the Filipino troops in San Juan and Mandaluyong. Antonio Luna appointed him commanding general of the third military zone with operations in Manila and Rizal...

Geronimo was a great disturbance to the Americans for his damaging guerrilla tactics against them. In July 1900, General Trias named him jefe superior [Chief Commander] of the joint forces of the second and third zones of Manila. In August, he took command of the district of Morong.

Gen. Geronimo continued to fight the American imperialists for over a year after his troops killed the highest-ranking American casualty of the war. Subsequently, however, he caved in to the pressures wrought by America military might and a double-faced "pacification campaign" (translation: at times, ruthless scorched-earth tactics were used). On March 29, 2001, the valiant Gen. Geronimo surrendered to the colonizers. He even became a Philippine Constabulary inspector and, later, officer.


US Colonial Propaganda

Within two years, however, the noted Filipino veteran of the Revolution and the Philippine-American War would be dismissed from the colonial-era Philippine Constabulary, supposedly on grounds of gambling. At this point, a student of history may wonder whether gambling was indeed the only reason behind Geronimo's dismissal. After all, his guerilla troop was responsible for the killing of heroic-to-the-Americans-but-fallen-colonizing-agent-to-the-Filipinos Gen. Lawton.

By any measure, Geronimo's association with the death of an American general presented an embarrassment for a (emerging) world power claiming that the inhabitants of its colonial possession were not waging, or in no position to wage, any war. Moreover, Gen. Geronimo demolished no less an illustrious American military hero whose persona the colonial government would forcibly inculcate into the Filipino psyche by naming an important Manila plaza after him, Plaza Lawton.


Lawton's Views of the Philippine-American War

Gen. Lawton, in his stint during the Phil-Am War and in his death while in action, was to be surrounded with, or involved in, propaganda issues relating to the military conflict in the Philippines. For one, in a conversation with a reporter-friend over his non-promotion to the rank of Regular Army officer, he expressed his apprehensions over the possible consequence of his public pronouncement of the need for 100,000 US troops in the Philippines.

Another would be a controversial letter--published only after his death--in which he seemed to downgrade Filipino resistance and military capability. In the letter he wrote before his death to former ambassador to Siam (Thailand) John Barrett, Lawton supposedly stated:

If I am shot by a Filipino bullet, it might as well come from one of my own men, because I know from observation, confirmed by captured prisoners, that the continuance of fighting is chiefly due to reports that are sent out from America.

Lawton's assessment of the need for such a large number of troops to neutralize the conflict in the new "acquisition," by itself, provided evidence that America was at war, particularly given that the Philippines is much smaller compared to the US. The reference to the military establishment/Washington possibly being displeased by such a public statement pointed to a propaganda policy of keeping the war realities from reaching the American people, but which he might have violated.

As for the letter to the ambassador, it was apparently crafted in response to the Anti-Imperialist League's criticisms of the annexation of the Philippines. It certainly appeared incongruent with his publicly stated view that the containment of Filipino resistance needed 100,000 US troops.

Moreover the Barrett letter seemed to squarely conflict with the contents of a formal correspondence also attributed to him. In that other letter, Lawton was all praises for the resolve of the Filipino soldiers:

Taking into account the disadvantages they have to fight against in terms of arms, equipment and military discipline, without artillery, short of ammunition, powder inferior, shells reloaded until they are defective, they are the bravest men I have ever seen...

His admiration for the under-equipped soldiers must surely not have been directed at the traitorous indigenous scouts that they were arming. Clearly, the Filipino soldiers earned Lawton's respect--and, apparently, the recognition that they were fighting a valiant war for freedom.


Phil-Am War as Historical Reality

At any rate, whether or not Gen. Geronimo's dismissal from the PC was related to his responsibility over the killing of American war hero Lawton, the facts of US turn-of-the-century imperialist expansion and the Filipino-American War would be confirmed by later historians. According to the all-American Smithsonian Institute website:

The United States combined tactics of pacification and social improvement with brutal military strikes. Aguinaldo was captured in 1901, and then in 1902 President Roosevelt officially declared an end to the conflict. However a Filipino-American War continued on until 1915. In years to come, Americans remained divided over the nation’s actions and imperial ambitions.

Military historian John M. Gates notes how the US forces became atrocious as they increasingly became frustrated in their missions. He writes that "The more frustrating the campaign became, the more frequently the Americans crossed the line separating the harsh reprisals sanctioned by General Order 100 from such crimes of war as torture and wanton destruction."

Clearly, why the US soldiers reached frustration level reflected the war intensity level that the Filipino patriots gave them in the turn-of-the-century conflict. Commenting on the casualty figures of the Philippine-American War (his count being actually very conservative compared to American author Gore Vidal's), Gates writes: "This war about which one hears so little was not a minor skirmish."


Plaza Lawton Place-Naming

Despite his having been killed by a Filipino bullet, however, the US colonial government was to have the temerity to name a plaza in the capital, Manila, after the fallen American general. Actually, "Plaza Lawton" was probably expected, given that imperialist periods always reflect the viewpoints of the dominant state.

During the early American era, colonial policy included an education (or miseducation?) policy of Americanizing the Filipino psyche. Under the so-called 1908 pensionado program, young Filipinos sent to the mother country for education became "sellers of American institutions and way of life" upon their return back home. Similarly, the introduced educational system in the Philippines taught the natives American presidents and figures, government system, etc.

More visible was the pattern of naming streets and places after American governor-generals, military officials, important American who served in the islands, etc. Thus, today's Roxas Blvd. in Metro Manila was formerly named after Commodore Dewey who demolished the Spanish naval forces during the Battle of Manila Bay, while A.H. Lacson St. in Sampaloc, Manila used to be named after Gov.-Gen. William Forbes. Burnham Park in Baguio City was named after American architect Daniel Burnham. Taft Avenue in Manila has also retained the name taken after the country's first American civil governor, William Howard Taft (later became US president).

Plaza Lawton was not the only case of propaganda/Americanization type of place naming instituted by the colonial government. Streets built right after the Fil-Am War in Malate were named after US states that sent volunteer soldiers to fight the Filipino army (later renamed after the patriots who played key roles in the First Philippine Republic).

From Lawton to Katipunan founder Bonifacio

In the early 1900s, Plaza Lawton became an important part of the so-called Burnham Plan for the capital city. The plaza fronts the facade of the Manila Central Post Office, a neo-classical but beautiful structure that still stands today (rebuilt after World War II). While it appears lost in the present time, it simply looked so grand during the early part of the 20th century. The plaza itself, without today's numerous jeepneys, cars, and development clutters, was a pleasant sight to behold.


... to Plaza Geronimo?

Plaza Lawton in Manila has been renamed Liwasang Bonifacio in the 1970s in honor of the Father of Philippine Revolution, Andres Bonifacio. While I am a Bonifacio partisan, I believe it would have been more appropriate and historically colorful (translation: capitalize on the historical irony) to rename the place as Plaza Geronimo.

Would it not be more fitting and historically meaningful to rename the plaza christened after the highest ranking imperialist military leader killed during the Phil-Am war to the (sur)name of the Filipino general responsible for the wartime feat? If only the Philippine government was probably not so sensitive to what its former colonial master would feel, naming that part of Manila "Plaza Geronimo" would actually constitute a logical choice.

Actually a street in Manila is already named after Gen. Geronimo--his birthplace in Brgy. Sampaloc. However, from the viewpoint of Philippine memory, it simply sounds more symbolic to change Plaza Lawton to the name of the nemesis of the fallen American general. Such an ironic name change will highlight the great, valiant struggle that ill-equipped Philippine eagle soldiers put up with against the colonizing American bald eagle forces.

To put it bluntly but honestly, Lawton was Geronimo's prized Filipino-American War trophy. America's biggest loss was the Philippines’s biggest prey catch. No matter that the killing of Lawton ultimately proved to be more of a fleeting victory, a consolation prize amidst the eventual US subjugation of the whole islands. From Plaza Lawton to Plaza Geronimo--a symbolic, if ironic, historical, anti-colonial sweet revenge.


Plaza Geronimo?????

Then again, maybe Gen. Geronimo does not deserve that accolade. After all, he surrendered to the American forces some 15 months after his guerilla force wondrously killed Gen. Lawton. I mean, real heroes fight to death, right?

In fairness to Gen. Cerio, as he was actually fondly called, his surrender came in the context of the successive captures or surrenders of other revolutionary leaders which, in turn, was apparently the effect of the cowardly stance of Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo, the President of the newly proclaimed (translation: fledging) Philippine Republic.

Captured in Palanan, Isabela on March 23, 1901, Aguinaldo did not fight to his death and, instead, swore allegiance to the enemy flag apparently so his life would be spared. His capture and subsequent oath of fealty to the new colonial master, the United States, gradually had the effect of breaking the back of Filipino freedom fighters. A number of other military leaders tried to continue the resistance but amidst the bloody, even ruthless military component of the "Pacification Campaign" of the emerging world power, Gen. Geronimo and the rest of those who remained fighting probably saw little hope of victory.

Lawton from an Objective View

Still the fact is that there was a Filipino-American WAR, which meant that the valiant Filipino guerrillas who launched a revolution against colonial Spain continued to fight in the war against the new and militarily more superior colonizing army of the US. Still, the fact is that Gen. Henry W. Lawton, celebrated American hero, was felled by a Filipino, a Filipino bullet.

Really. The phrase attributed to him, "If I am shot by a Filipino bullet, it might was well be from one of my own men," came only in Gen. Lawton's wildest dreams. Or, speculatively perhaps, was a propaganda concoction of the US military to try to disprove the Anti-Imperialist League's criticisms of "voice of God"-in- "Benevolent Assimilation" policy of President William McKinley.

Gen. Lawton. White American hero. Conqueror of American Indians. Trophy of Filipino Gen. Geronimo. Plaza Lawton. Change what you know.


Note:
*Some accounts state that Lawton either captured Geronimo; others claim the Apache leader surrendered—either to Lawton or another US military official.

____________


Images & References at: SOBRIETY for the PHILIPPINES

Better late than never. Early this year, I jokingly asked my colleagues at the UP College of Science what they planned to hatch for the Darwin Year celebrations. Well it seems that they came out with a something to digest for the Christmas holidays. The Science and Society program in cooperation with the School of Economics organized a symposium on "Darwin's Impact on Society" held yesterday 14 December 2009. The speakers included Professors Perry Ong of Biology, Maris Diokno of History, Raul Fabella of Econ and Mike Tan of Anthropology.

The lecture hall was packed with undergrad and grad students some of which came from other universities and colleges. Dean Jorge Bocobo observes that a majority of the audience were female. Perhaps this is another demonstration of Darwinian sexual selection at work? What do you think?

As a biogeographer, I also thank the speakers, especially Perry Ong and Raul Fabella for giving Alfred Russel Wallace the due recognition he deserves in proposing the theory with Charles Darwin. Wallace independently came to the same conclusion from observing biological variation in what is now Indonesia while Darwin came to the same one by observing domestic animals and by his voyage on the HMS Beagle. It was Wallace's letter to Darwin that prompted the latter to publish the theory.

Perry Ong gave a crash course lecture on evolutionary biology emphasizing that natural selection can be observed within one's lifetime (the "Beak of the Finch" Galapagos research by Rosemary and Peter Grant). Perry was able to pull it off. From my own experience, evolutionary biology cannot be taught within 30 minutes! Maris Diokno talked about the how school textbooks are biased for religious explanations in teaching evolution. Raul Fabella spoke on the limits of economic models that fail to include evolutionary psychology such as the evolution of altruism. Mike Tan spoke about the interplaying of Filipino views on spirituality and science which was essentially a condensed version of his speech to the science graduating class of this year.

Since for me, the veracity of Darwin and Wallace's theory is beyond doubt, I was much interested on Maris Diokno's exposition of science and history textbooks used in Philippine schools and how these are written to provide a creationist religious slant. One book describes evolutionary theory as "atheistic materialism" and another science textbook obviously promotes a "theistic" view of evolution by correlating and reconciling the Genesis story with current scientific understanding.

I find these disturbing. Science teaching cannot be coloured by religion because it will lose its empiricism and objectivity. The erroneous textbooks are right. Science is materialistic since it is empirical. The formulation of scientific theory is solely based on empirical evidence although intuition may be needed to formulate the hypothesis needed to test the theory. This intuition may come from observation or even a religious experience. But intuition and its inspiration whether religious or otherwise cannot be used to explain how the natural world works.

Filipino society's inability to separate religious viewpoints from scientific one according to Mike Tan is linked to our belief in a God that often intervenes in nature and in society. A case in point is after the Ondoy deluge. About a week later, Another typhoon, Pepeng threatened to go the way of its predecessor. Church groups organized prayer meetings and the Roman Catholic bishops ordered prayers (Oratio imperata) to spare Manila from the typhoon. Numerous blog posts and letters, op ed pieces in the mainstream media testified to the potency of the prayers as Manila was indeed spared. After all the tropical cyclone passed through northern Luzon three or four times causing havoc and as much damage or even more than Ondoy. Now the consequence of the prayers was to cause misery in Northern Luzon and the sinking of Henry Sy's SM Rosales Mall!

Now what did Pangasinan, Cagayan, Isabela residents and Henry Sy (despite we know that he earns billions daily) do to deserve to reap the potency of Metro Manila's prayers? This is the danger of purely accepting religious explanations without aid of reason. Were Manila residents more exceptional since they had paid for their sins and baptized by Ondoy's floodwaters? The problem of exceptionalism now creeps in and is the real danger. Exceptionalism, religious or otherwise has caused the misery and death of people throughout history. Darwin had it as

"If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin"

Darwin and Wallace's theory completely demolishes the presupposed natural and divine exceptionalism of humans. Of course the religious may argue that humans have souls that make them exceptional from the rest of the six kingdoms in nature. But a soul is not a natural science concept but a theological one and so we leave it for a while.

The textbooks that Maris Diokno cited say that humans evolved from apes (Proconsul etc). And in doing so we are more exceptional than apes and coupled with a bias for religion, paints a superior position for Homo sapiens as the pinnacle of creation. However evolution science tells us THAT WE ARE APES. The cladistic classification of humans puts the hairy apes and the naked ape as "Hominidae". We are indeed apes. We never evolved from apes since that would never make any sense. We however evolved from a clade that gave rise to monkeys makes more sense.

Since we Filipinos tend to believe in a God that often intervenes in our daily life, developing science literacy may require that scientists recognize the religious inclination of people and how this makes their view of nature adaptive. I have always maintained that scientistic atheism (sensu Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens etc is also a form of exceptionalism) since they claim that their view is empirically based and therefore superior. A wry and ironic adjectival phrase is Dawkins and Hitchens practice an "evangelical atheism". Also Dawkins is limited in his argument for that he has often have to borrow religious and faith based metaphors to advance his views (e.g. "Devil's Chaplain" and then title of his latest tome "The Greatest Show on Earth") and in some cases exposes his logical inconsistencies. Dawkins doesn't have the evolved language metaphorical toolkit to perfectly describe scientistic atheism as John Cornwell implies in his "Darwin's Angel"ic riposte of the "Delusion". Naturally, it is perfectly sensible to hypothesize the evolution of religion and belief in God as due to natural selection. Now here I am referring to belief in God and religion, which neither presupposes the existence or non existence of God. I even have a more daring extension of the hypothesis which is the central theme of Darwin's ."Descent of Man" I believe religion is nothing but an offshoot and consequence of sexual selection. The patriarchal religions are even clearer evidence of this.

In short religion is no delusion as Dawkins pontificates but an additional evidence of the consistency of Darwin and Wallace's theory. Religion is an adaptive trait which has definitely a biological substrate and has conferred a selection advantage for survival. Darwin's hypothesized that religion is a product of cultural evolution. However Darwin maintained that religion is not "innate" in man.

"The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the greatest, but the most complete of all the distinctions between man and the lower animals. It is however impossible, as we have seen, to maintain that this belief is innate or instinctive in man. On the other hand a belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be universal; and apparently follows from a considerable advance in man's reason, and from a still greater advance in his faculties of imagination, curiosity and wonder. I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument for His existence. But this is a rash argument, as we should thus be compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant spirits, only a little more powerful than man; for the belief in them is far more general than in a beneficent Deity. The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture." -Darwin "Descent of Man"

Darwin here was referring to belief in an Omnipotent Creator God. But other societies have beliefs in "lower spiritual entities". If Darwin attributes religious complexity to "advances in man's reason" then it follows that it is a consequence of natural selection since the faculty of reason is not exclusive to man. The "lower" animals can learn behaviours and exhibit reason. We then ask the question if whether they have evolved consciousness and from that a perception of a world beyond what is perceived. Some evolutionary psychologists call this "imagination" and that humans are the only animals (yet we know) that have that faculty.

Darwinism I believe will demolish this last bastion of exceptionalism. Who knows, even cetaceans with their evolved large brains (for a fluid and very sonic environment) may believe in God. We then wonder, what do they think of God? This is a step in really completely demolishing exceptionalism. When we do contact non-earth based intelligent beings, they will also be the results of natural selection and if our theory is right, they will likely believe in God. The Roman Catholic Church under Pope Benedict XVI has been daring enough to confront this possibility in holding a symposium in the Vatican to deal with this question in celebration of Galileo's 400th year anniversary of using the telescope and Darwin's 150th year of publication of the "Origin" . A theologian-scientist once quipped that if we do meet them "They would be so like us, that we don't have the moral right to call them aliens". If there is a statement that completely demolishes exceptionalism, then that must be it.

"Does God Exist?" is really the BIGGEST QUESTION in science. The scientific method may not have all the tools to answer this question and in doing that a theological one may also be needed.

The Anglican priest and physicist John Polkinhorne writes

"Raising the issues [of faith and people's reliance on the Divine] serves to remind us that almost all of the billions who believe in the existence of God do so not in the detached philosophical way, but from within the experience of a living faith community. In turn this also raises further questions about how the faith traditions relate to each other, with their common ground of encounter with the sacred and their strikingly different descriptions of what that encounter reveals."

And yet may I add, this too has a common origin.

This is a very Darwinian view which scientists like me need to take note and so do the religious exceptionalists that Mike Tan describes. Indeed there is grandeur in this view of life.

Ben Vallejo

"The revolution is over." That’s how GMA News should have headlined their story "Philippine left backs Villar, Loren"

After months of courtship, presidential candidate Manuel Villar of the Nacionalista Party (NP) succeeded in getting the support of the leftist group Makabayan.

Senatorial aspirants Bayan Muna Satur Ocampo and Gabriela Rep. Liza Maza on Monday officially joined the NP senatorial ticket as “guest candidates.”

Ocampo and Maza bring with them the support of the eight party-list groups under Makabayan–Bayan Muna, Gabriela, Anakpawis, Kabataan, Katribu, Migrante, Courage, and the Alliance of Concerned Teachers.

It is the first time that the leftist alliance is officially supporting presidential and vice-presidential candidates.

Ang daming namatay, napatay, na torture, na kidnap, na disappear para sa rebolusyong makabayan, tapos ang patutunguan din pala ng rebolusyon ay pagsanib puwersa kay Manny Villar at Loren Legarda.

Gusto ko sanang isipin na hindi alam ng kaliwa kung anong klaseng mga tao yan si Villar at si Legarda pero kung iisipin ko yun eh para ko na rin sinabi na tanga sila. Eh, alam ko naman hindi sila tanga.

“Ganun kalaki ang pagtingin namin sa mga kandidatong ito,” said Ocampo’s colleague in Bayan Muna, Rep. Teodoro Casiño.

Ano ka ba Teddy, lasing o bangag?

Nakakatawa sana ang pangyayari - Ipinagpalit ng kaliwa ang Rebolusyonaryong Daan para sa Daan Hari -pero sobra na ang dami ng dugong dumanak para matawa tayo.

Sabi ni Liza Maza: “Maganda kung makuha ni Bongbong(Marcos) ang pagkakataon na ma-settle ito. It’s a good opportunity to heal that past.”

Liza, wala naman kailangan i-heal kay Bongbong dahil hindi naman siya yun tatay niya. Hilo ka ba?

Kung sabagay okay lang kung ang kaliwa ay bumitaw sa rebolusyon. Magiging mapayapa ang bayan natin. Okay din kung gusto nila maging Nacionalista.

Ocampo called the partnership a “mutual adoption” of platforms: Makabayan adopts the NP’s platform while the NP adopts Makabayan’s platform.

Ang tanong ko lang sa kaliwa ay kung okay sa kanila si Villar bakit hindi okay sa kanila si Gloria?

Hindi yata nila nahahalata na ang pinagkaiba lang ni Villar kay Gloria ay nunal sa mukha!

Hindi ko kilala si Liza Maza pero kaibigan ko si Satur. My heart bleeds for my friend.

Source: Life in Gloria's Enchanted Kingdom

Senator Fracis "Kiko" Pangilinan interpellates the Palace team at the Joint Session of Congress this past week on the factual bases for the claim of Rebellion as a justification for Martial Law  in Maguindanao Province imposed under PP 1959 (lifted just eight days later last night). Using a highly effective Yes or No technique of asking questions, Sen. Pangilinan elicits several key admissions of fact, judgment and action from Executive Sec. Ed Ermita, Justice Sec. Agnes Devanadera and the officials of the Armed Forces and Philippine National Police that ought to be useful in the Supreme Court cases.

By Joselito G. Basilio

Does the lifting of Proclamation No. 1959 render the petitions of Jovito Salonga et. al. challenging the legality of Proclamation No. 1959 which imposed martial law in Maguindanao moot and academic?

A case is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by reason of supervening events. In the case of the present petitions, the supervening event is the lifting of Proclamation No. 1959 on 12 December 2009.

As a general rule, such petitions may be dismissed on ground of mootness. However, this general rule admits of exceptions, namely :

1) there is a grave violation of the Constitution.

2) the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved.

3) when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public.

4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.

I submit that the above exceptions are present and therefore the Supreme Court is bound to resolve the petitions filed by Salonga and other personalities.

By Dean Jorge Bocobo

Below is the speech given by Makati Rep. Teodoro "Teddy Boy" Locsin, Jr. at the Joint Session of Congress deliberating  Presidential Proclamation 1959 Martial Law in Maguindanao.  Original source is MLQ3's Scribd post: Teodoro Locsin, Jr Pro-Martial Law, which however is hard to cut and paste from, so here it is in html format, interspersed with some initial commentary and YouTube video. More in the Comment Thread and on my Twitter account from the last few days.

---

"This is how I sum up the government’s case."

Makati Congressman Teodoro M. Locsin, Jr. lawyers for Martial Law during the historic Joint Session of Congress.

"It is not without irony that I stand here defending martial law. But I do defend it.


"Nowhere and at no other time has it been better justified nor based more sufficiently on incontrovertible facts. Facts that call, indeed, cry out for the most extreme exercise of the police power, which is nothing less than martial law. Facts, not legal quibbles. Facts, not semantic distinctions of debatable validity. Look at the bodies, look at the arms stockpiles.


"Is rebellion as defined by the Penal Code a necessary condition for the validity of a proclamation of martial law?

Teddy Boy knows the answer is YES--not only necessary but sufficient since the Constitution expressly provides in  Art VII Sec. 18  that  "In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law."

"Then where is the definition of invasion in the Penal Code for the validity of martial law in that case? Since the repeal of the AntiSubversion Act, ideology is not a component of rebellion.


"I submit that rebellion here is not an exclusive reference to a particular provision of a particular law; but to a wide yet unmistakable, general but not indiscriminate allusion to a state of affairs that has deteriorated beyond lawless violence, beyond a state of emergency, to an obstinate refusal to discharge properly the functions of civil government in the area, by, of all people, the duly constituted but now obstructive authorities therein.

The above constitutes in effect, Teddy Boy's definition  of  REBELLION as a state of affairs that exists beyond lawless violence, beyond even a state of emergency that achieves a horrendous condition in which civil government obstinately refuses to properly discharge its functions--a condition most Filipinos might recognize in their own local governments everywhere, not just Maguindanao.

"It may be easier to repeat what Justice Potter Stewart said about pornography than to fix once and for all the meaning of the words rebellion and invasion, in a swiftly changing world, where both words can take on myriad realities. He said he couldn’t exactly define pornography but “I know it when I see it.” 


"We are seeing Maguindanao and what we see, unless we are morally blind, cries out for martial law—at least for now. Here was an obstinate refusal to obey the law and the lawful commands of the national government, so as to constitute, on the part of the once duly constituted authorities, an illegal usurpation of the government offices they once legally held; exercising them now, not for the purposes of law, nor with the aim of doing justice, but to use the powers and functions of that same government to frustrate the law, to perpetuate injustice, to protect the perpetrators of the most horrible crime in Philippine history, and to preserve the political influence that inspired the perpetrators with the idea that they could commit such a crime with total impunity. 


"This state of affairs calls for nothing less than martial law; however you quibble with words. It calls for martial law because just calling out the armed forces was tried and proved wanting to quell lawless violence and restore civil government. The proclamation of martial  law, which was addressed as much at the armed forces as at Maguindanao, send the signal to all and sundry: henceforth soldiers are no longer to obey nor to fear the politicians they were once made to serve and pander to, in derogation of their professional integrity, in the name of a misguided strategy of mutual deterrence in the ongoing secessionist conflict. 


"No, now the soldiers are beholden only to the law and the lawful institutions like the Executive and Congress in Joint Session Assembled. Martial Law sends the needed signal to our soldiers and police that now they need no longer be respecters of special persons but only of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, of the civil and criminal laws, of the State and not the temporary occupants of its public offices. Thus are soldiers and police emboldened to do their proper duty, to use their lawful force to the utmost lawful extent, as to achieve the specific aim of the proclamation; which, in this case, is to arrest with proper warrants anyone and everyone remotely connected to the massacre. 


"There is no constitutional immunity from arrest, only from arrest without warrant and detention without charge. And then proceed, as I hope they are doing, to destroy the political infrastructure of one warlord family—though I hope not to favor the other one—and permanently dismantle their political influence in the province—though I hope not to establish the political influence of the other warlord clan. But that is only my hope. It is martial law that shocked and awed the elements of the Ampatuan army to surrender without a fight. 


"This is the smallest atonement that the national government and the Ampatuans can make for the worst crime in Philippine history—the national government for arming them and the Ampatuans for using those arms so hideously. It is asked: If there is martial law to round up the Ampatuans, why not extend the martial law to contain the MILF and even go after the drug trade? 


"Willoughby suggests that a proclamation of martial law should have a specific aim and should not wander from that aim, that that aim being achieved, the mission should be declared accomplished, and martial law lifted in the area. Anyway, it can be re‐imposed again, and again, and again, and again— as it can be reviewed by the Congress in Joint Session as frequently. To this day, martial law in Maguindanao has not, despite the martial energy it has imparted to the military and police, occasioned a single abuse. True, soldiers kicked down the door to Governor Ampatuan’s hospital room. That is not an offense in law. Lese majeste is not a crime in a democracy. 


"That is not even an offense against the door, because a door has no legal standing to complain of being kicked even before the Supreme Court. Remember, soldiers kicked the door and not the governor. And it was a hospital door. The hospital can seek damages, if it dares, after harboring a fugitive. Our soldiers have not violated a single fundamental right, not even of the perpetrators of this hideous crime. Far from it, our soldiers have secured the fundamental rights of the ordinary people of Maguindanao from the depredations of the Ampatuan family and its goons, whether in their lingering terror of this family they admit it or not. This is known as the Stockholm Syndrome. 


"So here, by whatever name you choose to call it, is a situation comprising an obstinate, querulous, snarling, vicious, refusal to obey the laws and the lawful orders of the government, on the part of a now renegade government and escalating from stubborn resistance to threatening posture, so as to constitute in the mind of the Executive a threat so certain that its actuality could only be established beyond cavil by the senseless sacrifice of soldiers to prove the threat real and not just looming or imminent. This state of affairs includes what the Penal Code calls sedition and a host of other felonies and offenses; but which, regardless of which definition you prefer, constitutes for any reasonable person a state of conflict. 


"What Willoughby said, referring to martial law enforcers, ironically applies not to our soldiers but to their targets, the Ampatuans and their henchmen. “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law” as the Ampatuans believed. “No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity.” The Ampatuans were the first to impose martial law in Maguindanao without any basis but their undying thirst for power, which could only be slaked by the blood of anyone they disliked. To the martial law of the Ampatuans, the only adequate response was martial law by the government, which is the exercise of the inherent police power to secure the public safety through the armed forces. True, the courts were functioning when martial law was proclaimed, And true all government offices were open for business—but it was only for monkey business, for the benefit only of the Ampatuans, and against the lawful requirements of the State. 


"The civil registrar refused to issue death certificates for the victims of the Maguindanao Massacre, I guess because he could not put mass suicide as the cause of death. It has been suggested in this House that, while the Maguindanao Massacre allegedly happened, it was not the perpetrators who did it. I guess it was suicide. In military doctrine, Mr. Senate President and former Defense Minister Enrile, capability amounts to intent. 


"That this fully documented capability and inclination to mount armed mayhem came from the legally constituted provincial government of Maguindanao only compounded the gravity of the situation and brought it within the ambit of the historical precedents that have so wisely informed the jurisprudence of martial law as I vividly recall from 1972. It is, as Secretary Puno aptly compared, as though regular battalions of the AFP had gone renegade. Was the danger so substantial as to warrant martial law? How many really are the loyalists of the Ampatuans? A thousand, two, three?

"I would answer, 50 is already a lot because from newspaper accounts over the years, encounters between AFP units and MILF forces of that size but superior weaponry usually result in—what?—25 percent casualties among our troops? Is it proposed that we should have sacrificed our soldiers, by leaving them as sitting ducks, until the Ampatuans drew first blood, just to banish baseless not to mention insincere fears that this martial law is legally flawed? 


"I have heard it said that the biggest danger of this martial law is that, if it succeeds, will have a demonstration effect convincing the general public that perhaps the Army, like the French with regard to sex, just do it better when it comes to securing the public safety. Well, what of it? Is it proposed that we let the public suffer, that we leave a community terrorized and paralyzed by monsters, just so we can stop the Army from proving that they can do some things better? Why this instinctive suspicion and contempt of our soldiers? These are not soldiers of Marcos’s martial law, some of whom, let us not forget where critical to the toppling of the dictatorship. Far from violating any fundamental rights, our soldiers are securing those rights for everyone in Maguindanao against the depredations of this warlord clan. 


"Why this instinctive mistrust of the armed forces without whose sacrifices our country would be smaller by one third? And for their sacrifices, what is the soldier’s pay? Piddling. What are the soldiers’ rations? A can of sardines and a small reused plastic bag of old rice. And what is their recompense? Ingratitude and suspicion. I say leave this martial law to complete its mission. It shouldn’t take long.

Just a little something I want to share with everyone from the BBC.



BEN VALLEJO and DEAN JORGE BOCOBO will be participating at the University of the Philippines (Diliman Campus) College of Science Auditorium 2-5 pm.

From Ben Vallejo: "Don't forget to bring your Origin!"