One day after
It must be kept in mind that the existence of clear and present danger has yet to be established, either by Malacañang or by the outfit behind the armed threat. So far, all the shows of force on the streets of Manila were by government troops and policemen. No anti-government armed threat materialized. All we have are reports and rumors.
Of course, by Malacañang’s own account, government forces have already neutralized the group behind the attempted power grab. So: if (1.) the threat had already been neutralized and (2.) was apparently so small that it had been resolved within a few hours, without any shots being fired, then what justification remains for the declaration of a state of emergency?
Two devil’s advocate possibilities: first, assume the threat hasn’t been neutralized just yet. If this is the case, then why is it that we haven’t heard from its instigators at all? There haven’t been any pirate radio broadcasts, no cloak-and-dagger interviews, no shows of force, nothing - not even in the span between Gen. Senga’s announcement of a foiled coup attempt (around 5 a.m.) and the declaration of 1017 (around 10:30), when the media was still free to broadcast whatever it wanted to. From experience, anti-government forces would've taken advantage of the broadcast media by then, if only to show that the neutralization wasn't effective.
Second, assume that the group behind the armed threat had been neutralized - so effectively, in fact, that nary a peep from it can be heard, nor was it able to fire any shots in its defense. If this is the case, then why is it that the government hasn’t shown any tangible proof of its actions? Names of people in Senga’s “personal custody” have been dropped, but so far, no detainees have been presented to the media.
Given that there haven’t been any manifestations of a clear and present danger - and I trust that the list above exhausts the possibilities - it is the citizenry’s responsibility as the final check and balance to question whether the declaration of a state of emergency was justified. This responsibility is beyond politics: one may disagree with the opposition and/or support Gloria’s policies, but one cannot simply disagree with the principle behind civil rights, nor should the rights to free expression and assembly be so passively relinquished.
The circumstances surrounding the alleged ‘neutralization’ - that it was quick, effective, and total - are unrealistic, probably because the armed threat never existed to begin with. Based on what can be seen so far, I'm inclined to think the reports - reports are all we've seen so far, after all - of an armed threat was merely a Malacañang ploy to justify the restriction of civil rights. This, in turn, was designed to allow them to break up demonstrations and silence the press with impunity. The actions of the government since yesterday better fit this hypothesis than the one it would have us believe: that is, that an armed threat exists, and that 1017 is supposed to facilitate the elimination of this threat.
To wit: the first manifestations of 1017 - the ban on all demonstrations, the arrest of Prof. David along with 19 other demonstrators, and the confiscation of several mock-up copies of the Friday Daily Tribune - were against civilians who were merely exercising their rights, and had nothing to do with any armed threat. So far, these are the activities that the government considers to constitute the “clear and present danger”: the exact set of activities that the citizenry should have a guaranteed recourse to if and when the government oversteps its bounds.
Such is our Catch-22: it is our responsibility to raise questions over the government’s actions, but the government’s actions were designed precisely to prevent us from raising these questions.
Updates: ANAKPAWIS Representative Crispin Beltran and his wife were arrested earlier today in Bulacan; BAYAN MUNA Representative Satur Ocampo successfully eludes capture after military men show up at an opposition-led forum in Sulo Hotel.
Of course, by Malacañang’s own account, government forces have already neutralized the group behind the attempted power grab. So: if (1.) the threat had already been neutralized and (2.) was apparently so small that it had been resolved within a few hours, without any shots being fired, then what justification remains for the declaration of a state of emergency?
Two devil’s advocate possibilities: first, assume the threat hasn’t been neutralized just yet. If this is the case, then why is it that we haven’t heard from its instigators at all? There haven’t been any pirate radio broadcasts, no cloak-and-dagger interviews, no shows of force, nothing - not even in the span between Gen. Senga’s announcement of a foiled coup attempt (around 5 a.m.) and the declaration of 1017 (around 10:30), when the media was still free to broadcast whatever it wanted to. From experience, anti-government forces would've taken advantage of the broadcast media by then, if only to show that the neutralization wasn't effective.
Second, assume that the group behind the armed threat had been neutralized - so effectively, in fact, that nary a peep from it can be heard, nor was it able to fire any shots in its defense. If this is the case, then why is it that the government hasn’t shown any tangible proof of its actions? Names of people in Senga’s “personal custody” have been dropped, but so far, no detainees have been presented to the media.
Given that there haven’t been any manifestations of a clear and present danger - and I trust that the list above exhausts the possibilities - it is the citizenry’s responsibility as the final check and balance to question whether the declaration of a state of emergency was justified. This responsibility is beyond politics: one may disagree with the opposition and/or support Gloria’s policies, but one cannot simply disagree with the principle behind civil rights, nor should the rights to free expression and assembly be so passively relinquished.
The circumstances surrounding the alleged ‘neutralization’ - that it was quick, effective, and total - are unrealistic, probably because the armed threat never existed to begin with. Based on what can be seen so far, I'm inclined to think the reports - reports are all we've seen so far, after all - of an armed threat was merely a Malacañang ploy to justify the restriction of civil rights. This, in turn, was designed to allow them to break up demonstrations and silence the press with impunity. The actions of the government since yesterday better fit this hypothesis than the one it would have us believe: that is, that an armed threat exists, and that 1017 is supposed to facilitate the elimination of this threat.
To wit: the first manifestations of 1017 - the ban on all demonstrations, the arrest of Prof. David along with 19 other demonstrators, and the confiscation of several mock-up copies of the Friday Daily Tribune - were against civilians who were merely exercising their rights, and had nothing to do with any armed threat. So far, these are the activities that the government considers to constitute the “clear and present danger”: the exact set of activities that the citizenry should have a guaranteed recourse to if and when the government oversteps its bounds.
Such is our Catch-22: it is our responsibility to raise questions over the government’s actions, but the government’s actions were designed precisely to prevent us from raising these questions.
Updates: ANAKPAWIS Representative Crispin Beltran and his wife were arrested earlier today in Bulacan; BAYAN MUNA Representative Satur Ocampo successfully eludes capture after military men show up at an opposition-led forum in Sulo Hotel.