“Court junks De Lima’s petition for bail in last drug
case” (Philstar)
“Senators warn Palace vs. changing law on Maharlika
Investment Fund” (Inquirer)
“Families of victims await justice as the ICC reopens
Philippine drug war probe” (NPR)
What do the three headlines above have in common?
a. Injustice
b. Cronyism
c. Impunity
d. Uncertainty
e. None of the above
None of the above. If you want to know the specific answer,
read on.
Have you ever seen an Op Art painting that made your
eyes go funny? You know, the ones that use geometric shapes, patterns, colors,
and perspective to create optical illusions -- like a view of trees – that trick
your brain and make you see things, such as a hidden face or faces, that are
not there.
Op Art, short for optical art, is a style of visual
art that emerged in the 1960s and was popularized by artists like Bridget
Louise Riley, Victor Vasarely, and Jesus Rafael Soto. Op Art works are not only
fascinating and fun to look at, but they also challenge us to question our
perception of reality and to look closer at what lies beneath the surface.
If the three headlines above were Op Art paintings on
the wall of a museum, and a keen observer looks closer and sees more than meets
the eye, then he or she would catch a glimpse of a “hidden face” of no other
than Former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte (FPRRD).
LEILA DE LIMA
Let me give the space to our two prominent local pundits
to highlight the first case in point.
“A mother, a daughter, an elected public servant was
targeted by no less than the country’s president. She was subjected to
malicious scorn by some of her own colleagues in the legislature, falsely
accused of a crime, and deprived of her liberty. It took four years before the
case against her moved. Two judges have ruled that the evidence against her is insufficient
to warrant a conviction. How are we supposed to take all this?
“The cases against her virtually frozen in 2018, 2019,
and 2020 – while her chief nemesis, [FPRRD] was president. Six judges either
recused themselves or retired – a sign that the courts were not too keen to
hear cases that were clearly entwined with political interests.”
(Randy David in his Inquirer column The continuing
saga of Leila de Lima)
“And from the beginning of [FPRRD’s] incumbency, he
turned his wrath – he was still smarting from her daring to investigate him –
against her. He was relentless in his desire to see her in prison (he publicly
declared this), aided and abetted by his justice secretary, Vitaliano Aguirre,
also (like Duterte and de Lima) a San Bedan. And by all who were desirous of
getting into his good graces, in the legislative and judicial branches. Cheered
on by the enemies she made in the process of serving her country well.
“They used every trick in the book. They used lawfare. They used intimidation and they used bribery. And they used out-and-out lies, and when these were found out, they shamelessly invented others. They used trolls and photoshopped pictures and videos to ‘prove’ their case.” (Winnie Monsod in her article Six Years as a Person Deprived of Liberty: Thoughts on Leila de Lima)
MAHARLIKA INVESTMENT FUND (MIF)
The headline primed on the senators’ warning echoed by
Sen. Risa Hontiveros after Finance Secretary Benjamin Diokno said that pension
funds held by the GSIS and SSS, and other social welfare agencies might still
be invested in the MIF despite the prohibition set by Congress. Hontiveros
stressed:
“It is clear: The Senate’s version of the bill, which
was later on adopted, orders the absolute prohibition of the use of funds of
the GSIS, SSS, Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth), and other
insurance and pension institutions.”
Let alone, President Bongbong Marcos (PBBM) himself during
his interview on the sidelines of the GSIS 87th anniversary
asserted:
“I perfectly agree. We have no intention of using ang
pera – kukuha tayo ng pera ng pension fund. That’s not the (intention). We will
not use it as a seed fund.”
No wonder the Manila Standard’s Florencio Fianza
bannered in his column Speaking ex-cathedra the following statement:
“Diokno will now have a lot of explaining to do for contradicting what PBBM
said and putting him on the spot.”
Looking back, Inquirer Joel Ruiz Butuyan was one of
those who emphasized this pension conundrum in his column “Pensions that
violate the Constitution.”
“The pension and retirement benefits of MUPs have
ballooned to humungous amounts because [FPRRD] doubled the base pay of active
MUPs, to reportedly endear himself with military and police personnel, and
despite opposition from his economic team [which ironically headed by no other
than Diokno himself who later warned about an imminent government fiscal
collapse if no reforms are instituted.]
The Inquirer Editorial joined the fray: “[It was] put
in place… to reduce the chances that restive military officers would perhaps
take affairs into their own hands and stage coup d’ etats.”
On this Maharlika “Op Art,” FPRRD’s “hidden face”
reflects through the pension fund conundrum.
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (ICC)
On this ICC “Op Art,” FPRRD’s “hidden face” reflects
much more distinctly. I wrote about ICC in my previous ATABAY article International
Criminal Court: PBBM’s Albatross, some pertinent passages I am excerpting
below:
><><
Question: What are the implications of PBBM’s refusal
to cooperate with ICC’s ongoing investigation into the drug war killings under
FPRRD?
SOCIAL
1. Impunity. It sends a message that there is impunity
for those who commit crimes against humanity – demoralizing victims of such
crimes and emboldening other leaders to commit similar atrocities.
2. Tension and Conflict. It could exacerbate tension and
conflict.
3. Human Rights Violations. It could lead to human rights
violations, such as arbitrary detention, or extrajudicial killings of
witnesses, victims, or those suspected of providing information to the ICC.
POLITICAL [Tied in with De Lima’s case]
1. International Isolation. It could lose support from
other countries leading to international isolation.
2. Diplomatic Repercussions. It could harm PH’s
reputation on the global stage hampering cooperative work with other countries
and international organizations shackling future negotiations and agreements.
Exhibit A. “Gov’t Rushes To Avert EU Ban On PH Seafarers” (Inquirer)
3. Domestic Instability. If the public pulse for the ICC
investigation turns into widespread support, it could lead to internal unrest.
ECONOMIC [MIF’s weak spot]
1. Reduced Foreign Investment. It could lead to a
reduction in foreign investment due to the investors’ uneasiness to invest in
PH with a perceived poor human rights record and economic instability.
2. Economic Sanctions. It could lead to economic
sanctions – harming the PH economy by reducing investment and access to
capital.
3. Damage to International Trade Relations. It could harm
PH’s trade relations with other countries leading to reduced exports and
distress to local industries. Exhibit B. “EU Parliament To PH: Act On Human Rights
Abuses Or Lose GSP+ Perks” (Rappler)
><><
Finally, in light of the three headlines above as “Op Art” paintings from which FPRRD’s “hidden face” is reflected on each, denoting his widespread and deep-rooted reverberation on our country’s present state of affairs, I have concluded on the much more befitting title to my past ATABAY article – "FPRRD: PBBM’S Albatross."
Content put together in collaboration with Microsoft
Bing AI-powered co-pilot
Head collage photos courtesy of Asia Sentinel, Shutter Stock, & CNN Philippines
Video clips courtesy of YouTube
No comments:
Post a Comment