Pro-Choice and Pro-Life Advocacy of RH Law in a Secular State

By Dr. Romulo G. Bautista

Social Ethics Society

Pro-Life is always Pro-Choice, but not Vice-Versa

Sex with intent to procreate is pro-life; sex without intent to procreate is pro-choice. A married couple where the husband has a surgical vasectomy illustrates pro-choice. Underneath pro-life and pro-choice is the reality that every man is a moral being by nature, and as such he is free to choose between alternative options. A person lies when he says “I have no choice”, because such statement suggests a negative choice, but a choice nonetheless!

Constitutionality and Morality of the RH Law

The pending opposition from religious groups against the implementation of the RH law before the Supreme Court will be decided on the basis of its legality and constitutionality.  It is my layman understands that legality is central to any law; but constitutionality is central to legality; but morality is central to constitutionality. Religion is not central to the legality and constitutionality of the RH law. The RH law has a binding force if it is legal, constitutional, and moral, without discrimination or preference to any particular religion.

Morality is not monolithic

There is no single body of established and unquestioned work of morality. Which sort, then, of morality be the moral reference of the RH law?

The Filipino morality is basically Western morality which is categorized into (1) Religious Morality which is directly dependent upon religious beliefs or upon a set of values given by religion, which may be grounded in Judaism, or in Christianity, or in Islam. (2) Secular Morality which is based upon the autonomy of reason (reason alone) without any reference to religious ideas. If its values are the same as a particular religion, such is merely coincidental; and (3) Quasi-Religious/Quasi-Secular Morality (partly religious /partly secular) which emerged from the merger of the religious morality with secular morality, and is prevalent among the younger Generations toward the end of the 20^th century and in the 21^st century.

My out of the box philosophizing about the provisions of the Constitution mandating the separation of Church and State, and its attendant secularization of religion, and de-secularization of new form of spirituality, have uncovered the growing reality of “partly religious/partly secular morality” in the Philippines, and which I call “golden mean morality”.

Secularization of Religion and De-Secularization of Spirituality in the Secular State

The Filipino people ratified Article II, Section 6 in our Constitution which mandates that “the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable”. By virtue of this mandate, the secularization of religion is institutionalized in our country and the Philippines is now a secular state.

The Philippines is a secular state wherein the worldly affairs should not and must not be under the control of religious body and religious influence should be restricted, and in particular that education, morality, the state, etc. should be independent of religion. This is the secular context of the pro-life and the pro-choice advocacy of the RH Law.

By “Church’ I refer historically to the Catholic Church, but today it includes the Protestant Churches, and the other Western and home-grown Churches of Christianity.  By virtue of inviolable separation of Church and State, none of these Churches can claim supremacy over the State.

Secularization of religion follows naturally the separation of Church and State. Secularization refers to the process whereby the significance of religion declines in the personal life and/or society. The growth of secularization in the country is more evident at the social rather than personal level. At the national level, many important social functions by the Church diminished gradually as the Philippines became more and more a modern secular state and secular agencies have taken over Church’s responsibility over politics, education, welfare, and so forth. The more religion is secularized, the more the influence and authority of the Church, particularly the Catholic Church, decline at the national level. Nation-wide, many Christians actually buy contraceptive pills and condoms over-the-counter in many retail outlets, as well as avail of medical vasectomy and legation in hospitals, despite the strong opposition of the CBCP against the RH Law. At the local level, the status and importance of the Catholic Church and its Clergy also diminished. In cultural terms, Catholic Christianity has ceased to be a dominant force, being forced to compete not only with other Western Christian Churches, but also with home-grown Christian Churches, such as but not limited to, Iglesia ni Cristo founded by Felix Manalo and Kingdom of Jesus founded by Pastor Quiboloy, as well as compete with home-grown sources and systems of meanings, such as such, e.g. El Shaddai of Mike Velarde. The recruits of the non-Catholic Churches and alternatives sources and systems of meanings come mostly from the Catholic Church.

Independent surveys conducted by SWS revealed the continuing decline of Catholic Church’s members in church-attendance and active participation in other congregational activities. But, of course, the CBCP disputed the surveys of the SWS

De-Secularization of Spirituality in the Philippines

There is a distinction between “belief in the existence of God” and “belief about the essence of God”. The latter differentiates Judaism, Christianity, and Islam from each other. Thus, Judaism and Islam believe in the Unity of God (One Person in One God) but Christianity believes in the Trinity of God (Three Persons in One God).

The conflicting beliefs about the essence of God are the basis of Article III, Section 4 that “no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed”. Stated differently, the essence of religion is the “inner feeling” called “faith”. The “inner faith” is primary, and the religious rituals, rules and regulations are secondary to many religious believers today.

 “I am not religious, but I am spiritual” is now a common expression referring to the essence of religion - the “inner feeling” called “faith”.

Religion and religious belief are matters of free choice of the individual person. At the personal level, religion retains its widespread allegiance due to de-secularization of new form of spirituality which refers to the process whereby “spiritual religion”, in contrast to “ritualistic religion” increases its significance at the personal level.

When personal “Christian belief” is interrogated, it is often found to be “nominal” – without accompanying commitment to church-attendance or any other form of active Christian involvement. Instead there is a noticeable shift from a commitment to religion toward a commitment to spirituality, and away from a belief in a theistic God ‘out there’ toward belief in a more immanent Spirit (God). In other words, as well as witnessing a decline  in traditional religion, the 21^st century-Philippines appears to witness the rise of new, more immanent and ‘holistic’ form of spirituality which have more to do with the cultivation of unique subjective life than conformity to God-given norms. In this sense, both the secularization of traditional religion and de-secularization of new spirituality are taking place simultaneously in the Philippines. The more traditional religions is secularized at the social level,, the more the new form of spirituality is de-secularized at the personal level. One indication of this phenomenon is the grave concern of the CBCP over the continuing decline of church marriage and the continuing rise of ‘spiritual marriage’ among live-in couples in the Philippines. I view the phenomenon of ‘spiritual marriage’ and other forms of spirituality from the standpoint of ‘golden mean morality”.

The Golden Mean Morality in the Secular State

The “golden mean morality” emerged naturally and logically from Article II, Section 6 and Article III, Section 4 taken together.

The ‘golden mean morality” combines the claim of religious 

morality that moral values are universally applicable to all humankind with the claim of secular morality that  moral values are related  to human nature..

The golden mean morality is the middle ground between the religious morality of the Church and the secular morality of the State. But the middle ground is not exactly equidistant; rather it is more inclined toward the secular morality in accord with the mandates of Article II, Section 6 and Article III, Section 4 taken together. Pursuant to these Articles, the ‘golden mean’ morality allows every Filipino the freedom to choose and to decide and to enjoy or suffer accordingly the consequences of his free choice and decision. Without human freedom, there is no morality. Whether a person follows religious morality or secular morality, in the final analysis, it is a person’s free choice and decision that makes him moral or immoral. It is neither God nor religion that makes him moral. God and religion are simply deterrent to immorality. Thus belief in God or adherence to religion and/or religious beliefs is immaterial to the morality of the person. Responsible moral choice depends on freedom and the ability to choose rationally. Since there is no clear guidance in order to choose between conflicting moral views, a person has to use his or her reason as the ultimate factor – which is autonomy that is independent of religion or religious ideas and beliefs. This is the combined consequence of secularization of religion and de-secularization of spirituality.

The Moral Aspect of RH Law

I understand that the moral ground of opposition to the RH law before the Supreme Court is based on Article II, Section 12 which mandates that “the State shall . . . protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception”..

Let us view “the life of the unborn from conception” from the standpoint of the “golden mean morality.” I think the controversy revolves around the phrase, “the life of the unborn from conception”. In my understanding, the moral intent of RH Law is the prevention of life of one that is not yet conceived, not the abortion of life of already conceived being.

Apply Golden Mean Morality to RH Law

The government aims to distribute contraceptive pills and condoms for free to the poor, but this is objected to by some legislators who approve in principle the RH law but oppose it in practice. Any one can observe that there are more children in the depressed and slum areas than in mid-scale and up-scale subdivisions. Would they encourage the prevention of pregnancy by means of withdrawal at the moment of orgasm, anal sex, oral sex, and masturbation which costs nothing to the government?

In relation to the intent of RH Law, I raise the following some moral questions/issues - Is there human life before conception? If there is none, when does human life begin? If human life begins upon conception, when is the precise moment of conception? Does conception begin at the moment of fertilization of the egg? When is the precise moment of fertilization? Is the fertilized egg already human? When there is a miscarriage of fertilized egg, is there death of a human being? These are speculative moral questions which elicit conflicting speculative moral answers. The speculations are entry points of golden mean morality. In the actual reality, the questions call for one’s exercise of free choice, either according to the doctrine of his religion or according to the dictate of his autonomous reason; either along the line of pro-life or along the line of pro-choice.

Discussion on Philippine Political Culture: A Summary

By Joharel Escobia

Fr. Saturnino Urios University

Participants: Dr. Romulo Bautista (retired professor); Kevin Olmedo (Ateneo faculty and Davao Reader editor); Fr. Edmundo Palomar (parish priest and graduate student); Ryan Maboloc (Ateneo faculty); Cristian Ramirez (graduate student); Rodolfo Dumlao (LGU, Kabataan sa Makabagong Pulitika); Peter Elicor (Ateneo faculty); Joharel Escobia (Urios University faculty)

Brief Background

After Spain relinquished the Philippines as a colony, the Americans instituted its brand of democracy. It was during this period, however, that political elitism came into total fruition as lands that were acquired by the friars were simply transferred to those who been supportive of the American regime. This gave rise to provincial elites and Manila oligarchs.

After the post-war era, Marcos tried to overhaul the oligarchic structure by taking away the wealth of illustrious families. However, this move was ostensibly done. Marcos simply transferred the sequestered wealth to himself through crony capitalism. When Cory Aquino assumed power, she ordered to draft what is now the 1987 constitution to redress the abuses of the Marcos regime. Cory Aquino tried to bring in a new order, but it was no more than a restoration of the old one where only the top benefits from the progress. History tells us that only the few, powerful, and influential families hold the reign of governance in the country.

Until today the same oligarchic families hold power. The only difference is that they have grown in number.  Around 60 of the countries 70-plus cities have a dominant family that holds the political seat. This stifles true development as people are rendered powerless. As Prof. Randy David says, this type of system makes growth possible, but not prosperity.

Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution

Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution says: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” The clause “as may be defined by law” is vague. It does not specify the number of family members, and it does not specify the generation which will prohibit a family member from running for public office. 

The “equal access to opportunities” mandates that public offices should be open under the conditions of fair equality of opportunities. There is no equality of opportunities if only two rival families or two conflicting family members are running for the same position. Public office becomes a family possession, an inheritance which can be handed from one family member to another. Under this kind of set-up, the already powerful becomes even more powerful. The marginalized are even pushed further in the periphery. Political power which is controlled by the few oligarchs leads to unchecked abuses and corruption. Only few benefits while the majority of the populace who are poor suffers even more. Article II, section 26 of the constitution is supposed to preclude abuses and vicious inequality that occlude the country’s progress. In this regard, Kevin Olmedo emphasized on the idea of culture and how it influences our brand of politics. Structures are built on our concepts of the family and ties, ergo, blood relations.

Nonetheless, reality would tell us that the contrary is true. Political dynasty persists. Budding politicians like Manny Pacquiao have even started building their own dynasty. Bam Aquino, Nancy Binay, and many others are beneficiaries of this social malady. What allows this phenomenon to continue is clearly the absence of enabling law that will totally curtail it. The reason for this is the fact that our legislators are also members of a political dynasty. Logically, they would not drink their own poison. They would not endorse a law that will end their grip to power.

Many unreconstructed supporters continue to hold on to their political leaders despite their knowledge of their leaders’ corruption. They justify this by pointing out that this is the status quo. It is already ingrained in the consciousness of the people that the candidate who bears the family name of their chosen political dynasty though incompetent will gain their sublime vote.  So even if a conscientious and competent person who is not a member of a dynasty will run for public office, he will still not win. The voters are a slave to their loyalty to these elite politicians to the point that they become subservient to them.

This is contrary to what Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution asserts: “Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them,” noted Dr. Romulo Bautista. The political leaders should serve the people’s interest. The supreme authority emanates from the people. Political dynasty only serves the interests of the few oligarchs. The abuses of power and the concomitant corruption that comes from it is the debasement of the people’s welfare. Peter Elicor, for instance, echoes the feeling of political apathy among disgruntled voters who find elections as non-productive for the poor.

The Dynasty of the People

Fr. Joaquin Bernas has written in a PDI column that nothing will come out of the campaign against political dynasties. Truth to tell, he mentioned that Comm. Jose Nolledo tried to introduce a section outlawing it, but the 1987 Constitutional Commission turned him down. Nolledo's final plea, however, according to Fr. Bernas, allowed the section on political dynasties. But it included the difficult requirement for congress to enact a law to ban it, which will never happen because the two houses of Congress are the playgrounds of our political elites.  

But while nothing can be done legally, the moral realm is a different arena. The people should bear in mind that they constitute the supreme dynasty. The Constitution is clear that political power must serve the public’s interest. Political dynasty is inimical to the welfare of the people. “It destroys competition,” says Dr. Lukas Kaelin of Stanford University. Political dynasty enforces the great division between rich and poor. The ruling class belongs to the elite stratum of society, and it turned out that the elite are the only ones who benefit from this. 

We cannot expect a politician from an illustrious family who has enjoyed the luxury and comfort of opulence to be sympathetic to the abject conditions of the poor. "You just make them richer", Rodolfo Dumlao quipped at the sidelines of the discussion.  The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes would remind us that man has the natural proclivity to pursue his own selfish interest and to seek his own gratification. We cannot expect the oligarchs to be altruistically motivated in running for public office. They have an evil plot in mind which has impeded the country's progress. It is sensible to be critical about our political oligarch’s dissembling intentions for they are not reflective of the public interest.

Politicians may argue that there are good dynasties. But the monopoly of power it creates often leads to corruption and abuses. It is hard to see who is good and who is bad for the latter overshadows the other. Political dynasty has done more harm than good. Although some families argue that they have been chosen by the people, it must be determined if people did really follow their conscience in voting. The people, as we all know, can be influenced by way of trivial goods. This is the very mechanism of the dictatorship of the old order, according to Prof. Ryan Maboloc.

There is a need to end the culture of patronage politics. It has to start by not voting for candidates who are building political dynasty. Political dynasty will not flourish if we voters would show our disdain for it. Politicians gained the guts of putting their family members into office because the people support it. The country is experiencing the ill-effects of a politics run only by few families, for instance, the limited and exclusive type of development. There is a need to voice out our dissent by voting only for competent and principle-based candidates who are not members of any political dynasty. Although at present, the people are left with no genuine choices since almost all candidates have their respective dynasties should only prompt us to act against it. Political maturity is still key.

Moreover, political participation does not stop with casting our significant ballots. It also involves pressuring COMELEC and even our legislators to prohibit political dynasty. This is to ensure that the current elite families will not grow further in the future. This is also to level the field so that competent persons who are not wealthy and influential enough will have the chance to run and serve the Filipino nation. Genuine dynasty, according to Dr. Romulo Bautista, is the people, and not the few expedient oligarchs.

Beneficial Purpose of War to Peace and Human Development

Dr. Romulo G. Bautista

Prologue

The title is product of my out-of-the-box philosophizing and its dialectical approach to the non-conventional concept of “unity of war and peace taken together” in contrast to the conventional concept of “conflict of war and peace taken together”. My philosophizing proceeded from the following provisions of Article II in our Constitution:

Section 1: “The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them”;

Section 2: “The Philippines renounces war as instrument of national policy and adheres to the policy of peace”; and

Section 8: The Philippines, consistent with the national interest adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory”.

Obviously, the provisions are biased against war in favor of peace. War and peace may be taken separately or be taken together. I choose to take war and peace together, as well as take the negative and the positive side of war together. As the Constitution focuses on the negative side of war, I choose to focus on its positive side.

Bases of Dialectical Approach to War and Peace

My dialectical approach to war and peace is based upon my insight into the Genesis and the Ecclesiastes that every thing in reality has two opposite sides, and war is no exception.

The narrations of the Genesis (1:1-18) brought me to the awareness of law of dialectic in reality. In the beginning the earth was in total darkness and it was not nice to behold, so God created light and he called it Day, and the darkness he called Night. Later God gave together two opposite commands, “Thou shall eat” and “Thou shall not eat” (Genesis 3:1-8) to Adam and Eve (opposite sexes). The commands presupposed their natural duty to survive and their freedom to choose which command to follow. In addition I have the declaration of the Ecclesiastes (3:1-8) that “to every thing there is a season and a time for every purpose under the heavens; a time of war, and a time of peace.” The conjunctive “and” signifies inseparability between opposite realities or phenomena. In summary, the Genesis and the Ecclesiastes speak of conflict between opposite realities, yet there is unity between them because they are inseparable as they are opposed to each other and mutually complementary; neither one is complete except in relation to the other.

Unity of War and Peace: The Middle Path to Human Development

I view war and peace as moral phenomena of human freewill toward human survival and human development, in accord with the law of nature. My understanding is that our Constitution is the law of nature as formulated and accepted in our mind, and adopted by the State for its governance and authoritative control of the Filipino people, the human law that regulates the transactions and relations between Filipinos in their social life, the law that defines their rights and duties, civil liability and criminal responsibility, and prescribes the remedies for wrongs and proper procedure for complaining and setting up defenses.

In the relationship between individuals and State, I view war neither an activity of individuals as individuals; nor an activity of large groups just as large groups. I view the sovereign state thru the government as the only kind of large group which possesses the measures, power, and authority necessary to carry on war.

War has been with us since time immemorial. Protagonists on opposite sides have won and lost many battles, but neither side has ever permanently won the war. War, in fact, has become even more deadly and deadlier with the invention of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. The Philippines is at the threshold of global nuclear war and/or  global terrorism with weapons of mass destruction, which could cause not only the mutual annihilation of protagonists, but also biocide or killing of all forms of life on earth.

In point of fact, we can be governed without knowing it,

but we could never fight a war without knowing it. Government without consent of the governed is relatively easy to bring about. War without the consent of the warriors is impossible. Conscience, if it has courage of its conviction, can remain in control.

In my paradigm, the concept of human rights is firmly established as standard for regulating the dialectical relation between the government and the people being governed; as a standard for determining the limits of the governmental power, the limits beyond which the government has no legitimate authority to exercise over the individuals. It is clear that insofar as the government is something having an authority over the people, such authority is not absolute; it is always subordinate, in the final reckoning, both morally and empirically, to the authority which the people have over the government. This is precisely the meaning of “sovereignty of the people and all government authority emanates from” in our Constitution. First come human rights, then comes government. This is the reason why President Noynoy Aquino, whenever and wherever he has a chance, says “kayo ang boss ko, kayo ang masusunod.”

The government exists for human beings, not human beings for the government. The use of power, when there is a threat or activity of war, must be judged and controlled by relation to human duty to survive and right to live – life is the primary, the pre-condition to the enjoyment of any other human rights, the right to live out and the duty to survive during one’s natural span of life.

The dialectical movement of war and peace in human history has three recurring stages, namely: (1) thesis - affirmation of peace; (2) anti-thesis – negation of peace (affirmation of war) wherein there is a “conflict of peace (thesis) and war (anti-thesis)”; and (3) synthesis - negation of the negation (anti-thesis) wherein there is unity of war and peace. Negation of the conflict is not mutual annihilation of war and peace, but it conserves the positive and the progressive elements of war and peace in the previous stages, thereby resulting into “unity of war and peace” in the subsequent stages of the dialectical movement.

The synthesis of war and peace makes war to partake of the goodness of peace, and peace to partake of the badness of war toward human survival and human development.

.The Benefits of War to Peace-loving People

If we examine the threats and/or activities of war more closely, we will be forced to abandon a number of our prejudices and biases against war. We have all sorts of war in the Philippines and elsewhere around the world. ‘The ‘greatest good of the greatest number” is the beneficial purpose of war to peace-loving people in our democratic and republican state. Let us take war against criminals, as example to show the beneficial purpose of war.

No doubt, the criminal produces crime. But if the relationship between the production of crime and the whole productive activity of society is examined a little more closely, we will be forced to abandon a number of biases and prejudices against criminality. Among other things, the criminal produces not only crime but also the criminal law; he produces the professor who delivers lectures on criminal law, and even the inevitable textbooks in which the professor presents his lectures as a commodity for sale in the market. There results an increase in material wealth, quite apart from the pleasure which the author himself derives from the manuscripts of his textbooks. Further, the criminal produces the whole apparatus of the police and criminal justice, law-enforcement officers, detectives, judges, executioners, juries, priests and ministers, crime psychologists, reformatory and penal institutions, security agencies, gun manufacturers, makers of security equipments, and so forth, and all these different professions, which constitute so many categories of the social division of labor, develop diverse abilities of the human spirit, creates new needs and new ways of satisfying them. Crime has provided occasions for the most ingenious mechanical invention such as CCTV, security alarms, security locks, guns, tear gas bombs, armored cars, etc. , employing a host of honest and peace-loving workers in the production of these instruments. Finally, the criminal produces an impression now moral, now tragic, and renders a ‘service’ by arousing the moral and aesthetic sentiments of the public, He produces not only the textbooks on criminal law, the criminal law itself, and thus legislators, but also art, literature, novels, and the tragic drama which peace-loving people enjoy reading or watching on TV, or sell as commodity in the market.

Without threat or activity of war, millions of peace-loving Filipinos would lose their jobs, job opportunities, and livelihoods; thereby gravely endangering their natural duty to survive and natural right to live. 

Political Dynasty of the People versus Political Dynasties of Oligarchs

Romulo G. Bautista, Ph.D.

Social Ethics Society

Prologue

The Philippine Constitution is a Social Contract which embodies the fundamental principles and policies, according to which the Filipino people are governed by the State. The fundamental principles are abstract and as such they cover every aspect of the life of the Filipino people; while the fundamental policies cover specific areas of application of those principles. The fundamental principles remain fixed and permanent, but the policies built upon those principles can be modified or repealed by legislation to suit the needs of the times.

The title is product of my out of the box philosophizing about the provisions of Section 1 and Section 26 taken together of Article II of our Constitution. I must say that philosophizing does not tell us my conclusions and/or thoughts are right or wrong, true or false, but it has certainly given me the basis upon which to present my meta-understanding of Section 1 and Section 26:

Article II, Section 1 says: “The Philippines is a democratic and republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.” This is the most basic principle of the Constitution, and it refers to a natural law as formulated and accepted in the mind; it refers also to essential truth upon which other truths are based.

Article II, Section 26: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” This is a policy built upon the principle of Section 1, and it refers to a planned line of conduct in the light of which individual decisions on political dynasties are made and coordination is achieved. Moreover, political dynasties refer to the line of politicians of the same families.

Every coin has two inseparable opposite sides – the head and the tail - yet they complement each other as they are opposed to each other to constitute only one coin.  Similarly, the political issue on dynasty has two opposite yet complementary sides (a) “the principle of political dynasty” of Section 1 and (b) the “the policy of political dynasty” of Section 26. Both Sections constitute one Article II. The policy of Section 26 names the specific area of application of the principle of Section 1 of the same Article II. The policy of Section 26 is built upon the basic principle of Section 1. Moreover, the fundamental principle of Section 1 remain fixed and permanent, but policies of Section 3 can be are modified or repealed by legislation to suit the needs and demands of the times.

The People: The Creators and Masters of Political Dynasties

The phrase - “sovereignty resides in the people, and all government authority emanates from them” - clearly shows that the people are the habitat of the sovereignty. However, “people” have two distinct yet mutually complementary meanings, namely, “people as electorate” which is the source of political power of elected politicians and “people as corporate nation” which is the reason for being of elected politicians. These “dual meanings of people” effectively signify that the elected politicians are “public servants” of the people; hence the people are their “boss and master” in our democratic and republican state, not the way around

By virtue of their sovereign power, the people are superior to any and all existing political dynasties, whose reason for being is service to their masters, the people. On moral grounds, the people must be awakened to the reality that they are the boss of political dynasties, and therefore they have no reason to fear the, before, during, and after political elections.

Centrality of Morality in the Constitution

The centrality of morality to our Constitution is evident in the Preamble, in the imploration to Almighty God for aid to build a just and humane society and to establish a Government that shall embody the Filipino ideals and aspirations and promote their common good under a regime of  truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace. The rest of the Constitution revolves around these moral ideals and moral values.  These are the moral foundations of the Social Ethics Society.

There are socio-economic phenomena in many areas of the country where the life-style and the exercise of political power by political dynasties is betrayal of public trust, because it is not in accord with the following moral imperatives and criteria of right and wrong in public service:

• “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest life”. (Article X on Accountability)

Every elected politician in the public service is bound to abide by those mandates. Congress had passed anti-graft and anti-corruption laws, e.g.  RA No. 6713, also known as Code of Ethics for Government Officials and Employees, in the public service.

However, it appears that many of our elected politicians pay only “lip service” to anti-Graft and Anti-Corruptions laws. For instance, there are widespread phenomena of bribery and corruption in the public service, reportedly perpetuated by corrupt politician, many of whom are allegedly members of political dynasties.

Centrality of Morality to Legality

The Preamble provides the moral grounds and the foundation of ethical politics of several Articles of the Constitution. No statutory law is enforceable if it is unconstitutional; and the Constitution cannot be enforced if it is immoral.

The bottom line - any enabling law on political dynasty is legally binding upon the Filipinos, only if it is constitutional and moral. A law that is moral is always constitutional, but a law that is constitutional is not necessarily moral.

A Moral and Ethical Proposal

I believe the policy of Section 26 which “prohibits political dynasties as may be defined by law” has two distinct opposite sides, (1) “the letter of the Constitution” which is the legalistic side, and (2) the “spirit of the Constitution” which is the ethical side.

The pro-political dynasty advocates and promoters behave in accord with legal politics. Their action is legal so long as there is no law defining and enabling the constitutional prohibition against political dynasties. Therefore, the anti-dynasty advocates and promoters should stand on moral and ethical grounds against political dynasties.

It is my proposal on moral and ethical grounds that the anti-dynasty advocates should develop and promote the concept of “political dynasty of the people” based on the principle of Section 1 face-to-face the “political dynasties of oligarchs” based on the policy of Section 26 but built upon the principle of Section 1. When there is a conflict between a principle and its policy, the principle should prevail over its policy.

Moral, Ethical, and Legal Practices in Politics

Moral and ethical are similar in meaning in that they both have to do with the difference between right and wrong. They are dissimilar in meaning in that ethical tends to refer to a code, system, theory, or standard of judging rightness or wrongness of moral behavior; whereas moral tends to refer to more concrete choices and issues that arouse strong feelings. In other words, moral refers to good and evil, while ethical refers to right and wrong. Because of the untruthful disclosure of his SALN per Code of Ethics, former SC Chief Justice Renato Corona was found ethically wanting for which he was impeached, despite his superior legalistic knowledge of law; Hence, we could say that “what is moral is always ethical, but what is ethical is not necessarily moral.” Hence, when an elected politician acts according to RA 6714, his behavior is ethical as well as legal - “what is ethical is always legal, but what is legal is not necessarily ethical”.

The Pursuit of Ethical Politics

Our major problem in the pursuit of ethical politics is the lack of political will on the part of the people as electorate. Let us awaken and educate their political consciousness, and empower their political will by making them conscious of their being the political dynasty that is superior over all existing political dynasties of oligarchs” per mandate of Article II, Section 1 that the people are the habitat of sovereign power, but the exercise of such pwer is delegated and vested upon elected politicians.

Assume that Congress would never pass the law enabling the policy against political dynasties; let us then resort to the principle of Section 1 in Article II. This principle does not require any enabling law because it is precisely the ultimate basis of all enabling laws. This is the principle why the political candidates try to win the votes of the people during political campaigns. We have indeed laws prescribing the requirements of the policy to vote.

The Social Ethics Society can start the movement to marginalize the political dynasties,, if not altogether eliminate them eventually from the political landscape of the Philippine.

Political Dynasty and Political Responsibility of Philosophy Professors

Dr. Romulo G. Bautista

Social Ethics Society

“The Philippine is a democratic and republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government Authority emanates from them”. (Principle, Constitution, Article II, Section 1)

“The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law” (State Policy, Article II, Section 25)

These two Articles provide me with the grounds for ethical politics face-to-face legal politics which justifies the existing political dynasties of families in the public service.

I view political dynasties from the standpoint of political philosophy of Social Ethics.

From time to time, our politicians speak of “getting back to the fundamental principles of democracy”, when they seek to explain and justify particular legislation, in this instant, the legislation of the law enabling our Constitution’s prohibition against political dynasties,

The concept of “fundamental principles” raises a number of abstract issues with which political philosophy is concerned, such as but not limited to the concepts of freedom, justice, liberty, and equality.

The Philippine Constitution is a system of basic principles according to which the Filipino people are governed. The State Policy of Section 25 against political dynasties is a logical conclusion of the basic democratic and republican principle of Section 1. Moreover, the term “people” of Section 1 has two distinct but complementary meanings: (a) people as corporate nation is the habitat of sovereignty and the reason for being of the government; and (b) people as electorate grant the sovereign authority of the government to command and be obeyed by the people as corporate nation.

However, the Principles and the State Policies of the Constitution are abstract in character and as such, they are not self-implementing; they require enabling laws to define and to enforce them. Such is the case of State Policy against political dynasties; it has yet to have an enabling law to define political dynasty and to enforce it. The prohibition is conditional, and Congress is tasked by the Constitution to define those conditions. In the absence of legislated conditions, the existence of political dynasties in the country is legal and consistent with our legal politics

Constitutionality and Morality of Enabling Law

I believe that constitutionality is central to legality of statutory laws. No law can effectively be enforced if it violates the Constitution. In case of doubt as to its constitutionality, the law can be brought before the Supreme Court for final interpretation, evaluation and decision; such is the case of the RH Law which is before the Supreme Court. But, in turn, central to constitutionality is morality, which means that no one can invoke or enforce an immoral constitution.

The bottom line is - any enabling law against political dynasty is legally binding upon the Filipinos, only if it is constitutional and moral. A law that is moral is always constitutional, but a law that is constitutional is not necessarily moral.

In my paper, the terms “ethical” and “moral” are used inter-changeably in that both are similar in that they both refer to “right and wrong”. So, when I use the term “moral” or “ethical”, I refer to right and wrong, not to good and evil, of human conduct. I should say “what is morally right is always ethically right, but not vice-versa.

 Political Responsibility of Philosophy Professors vis-à-vis Political Dynasties

Now and then politicians in a democratic and republican state speak of ‘getting back to the fundamental principles' of political dynasty. The search of basic principles to justify political dynasty brings us into the realm of social ethics, specifically into its field of political philosophy.

Starting from the phrase ‘back to basic principles’, we enter into the concepts of freedom, justice, liberty, and equality which are issues with which political philosophy is concerned.

It is my fervent hope that Congress should pass the law enabling the prohibition against political dynasties in the light of freedom, justice, liberty, and equality. I believe that these concepts can be the entry point for the political responsibility of philosophy professors beyond the classroom. The Social Ethics Society is a venue for them beyond the classroom.  

    

Constitution as Social Contract and the Problem of Social Benefit

The Constitution is the Social Contract, or the agreement of Filipinos that they shall act together for their mutual benefit. The problem arises over exactly what is to the benefit of society, and who is to decide it. Should we allow political dynasties to decide what is to the benefit of Filipino society as a whole? I think not,

There are contending political philosophies which might help Congress to interpret and define the concept of political dynasty in the Philippines. But, each political philosophy has its strength and its weakness.

 Contending Theories of Social Contract

We may interpret political dynasty from the position of the Social Contract of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke based on man’s fundamental struggle for self-survival.  For Hobbes and Locke, the moral justification for the action of the State is utilitarian, the moral theory that seeks “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” as formulated by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Moreover, we have the concept of Social Contract of Jean-Jacques Rousseau which significantly differed from those of Hobbes and Lock, and which largely inspired the French Revolution with its battle-cry of “Fraternity, Equality, and Justice”. For Rousseau, the individual should give up his personal will and should accept the ‘general will’ in order to discover one’s higher aspirations and moral freedom. The implication of his concept is enormous. A State can carry the most drastic action on the basis of carrying out the ‘general will’ of the people.

We may also interpret political dynasty from the standpoint of justice. If people are to band together for mutual protection, if they are to enter into social contracts, if they are to set their own interests aside, they need to be persuaded that the society within which they live is based on principles that are just. But what constitutes political justice? One answer comes from John Rawls. In a Theory of Justice Rawls starts with the idea of a group of people who come together to decide the principles upon which their political association should operate. They set about forming their social contract with one important criterion: that they should forget everything about themselves as individuals. They do not know if they are poor or rich, men or women. They do not know their race, or their positions within society. They come together simply as individuals, nothing more. He therefore seeks by this means to establish principles that:

“Free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association.”

In other words, they are concerned to benefit themselves, but do not know who they are. By this means, Rawls hopes to achieve justice, for people will seek to legislate in a way that will benefit them, whoever they eventually turn to be. He argues that such group would require two principles:

Liberty. Each person should have equal right to as extensive a set of basic liberties (conditions of being free to choose) as possible, as long as that does not prevent others from having a similar a set of fundamental liberties. 

• Distribution of resources.  Given that there social inequalities, the distribution      should be such that the least advantaged in society receive the greatest benefit. This is justice based on fairness. But, if every inequality is allowed only on the basis that it benefits the least well off, there is very little chance that excellence will be developed, since every facility offered for the development of excellence is likely to increase rather than decrease the gap between the most able and the least able.

What is a Paradigm?

A paradigm is more commonly used today to mean a model, a theory, a perception, assumption, or a frame of reference. In the more general sense, it is the way we “see” the world – not in terms of our visual sense of sight, but in terms of perceiving, understanding, and interpreting. There is a need to create an ethical paradigm against political dynasties.

Ethical Politics, Legal Politics, and Political Dynasties

In the absence of enabling law, political dynasties are legal.

Political dynasty refers to the line of ruler-ship of the same families and it is consistent with legal politics. Pending the enactment of enabling law against political dynasties of the same families, I propose that we should set an ethical paradigm to shift our view from legal politics to ethical politics. My ethical paradigm is grounded in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which declares that “sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them”.

A New Ethical Paradigm: “The People is the Supreme Political Dynasty”

Let me reiterate what I said earlier on: the people are the habitat of the sovereignty. However, “people” have two distinct yet complementary meanings, namely, (a) “people as electorate” which is the source of political power of elected politicians and (b) “people as corporate nation” which is the reason for being of the exercise of political power of elected politicians. These “dual meanings of people” effectively signify that the people are the “real boss and master” of “elected politicians who choose and

vow to be public servants to the people.  

The phrase “sovereign resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them” ultimately means that “the people are truly  the supreme political dynasty”.  The “people as supreme political dynasty” are superior to any and all existing political dynasties of families, who are subordinate to the supreme political dynasty of the people.. All that is needed is for the people to assert their “superior position” over any and all political dynasties before, during and after the elections to remind the elected politicians of their role as public servant to the voters as their “boss and master”. This is the way of ethical politics.

In principle, I have no quarrel with political dynasties of few families, because it is legal in the absence of enabling law. In actuality, however, political dynasty “limits the choice of the electorate in the ‘political buffet’ especially in areas dominated by members of the political dynasties”, Admittedly political dynasty is consistent with legal politics. At the moment, the alternative to legal politics is ethical politics..

My description of political dynasty refers to “political dynasty of the people” which is implied in Article II, Section 1, not the “political dynasties of families” which is prohibited by Article II, Section 25 of the Constitution.. There is no need to pass an enabling law to declare the “supremacy of the political dynasty of the people” over the “political dynasties of families”. This fact is not self-evident, but it does happen during election times. The way of the “supreme political dynasty of the people” is the way of ethical politics. The political education of the people, particularly of the common tao, is a possible area of involvement and engagement for the Social Ethics Society and its members.

The Political Responsibility of Philosophy Professors

Let me encourage the political responsibility of philosophy professors with an analogy, Confronted by a cat, a mouse cannot argue its case for the right to life, liberty, and equality. Why? Individual rights and social obligations are not discovered in nature, but they are devised by society; without society there would be no rights, no obligations, no human laws, and no morality. This is why there is the prohibition of the Constitution against political dynasty because we live in a society; we could never live outside society. The prohibition is a social obligation which allows every one “equal access” or “equal opportunity” to public service within our democratic society. Without society, there's no need for public service.

    By “political responsibility of philosophy professors”, I refer to their active involvement and active engagement beyond the classroom in the way of education, empowerment and/or enhancement of the “political will of ordinary voters as “supreme political dynasty” over and above all existing political dynasties of few families in the country.

Unless we stop the growing membership of political dynasties of few families in Congress, there is a growing skepticism that Congress would ever pass the law enabling the prohibition of political dynasties. In the meantime, why should Social Ethics Society not pursue ethical politics to minimize the growth of political dynasties in Congress? The existence of political dynasties could be stopped on moral and ethical grounds by enlightened political choice and decision of ordinary people, even without any enabling law.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

The Catholic Church on the RH Bill in the Secular State of the Philippines

By Romulo G. Bautista

I speak from the neutral position of our Constitution, as the Catholic Bishops speak with partiality from the position of the Catholic religion. Since we speak from different standpoints, expectedly we have different, even conflicting, views, on the RH Bill being debated at the halls of Congress.

Filipinos often speak of the Philippines as a republican and democratic State. But hardly do they speak of the Philippines as a secular State. Freedom of religion, freedom of worship, freedom of expression, and freedom of dissent can only take place in a secular State, which is the case of the Philippines.

Following the teaching of Christ, “give unto Cesar what is due to him; give unto God what is due to Him”. I believe this is the spirit behind Article II, Section 6 of our Constitution which declares that “the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable”. This mandate effectively dissolved the unity of Church and State, when the Church used to be supreme over the State. The Catholic Church should not intervene in the legislative function of Congress which enacts laws for the common good of every Filipino regardless of his religious belief and religious affiliation. Moreover, Article III, Section 5 has strengthened the inviolable separation of Church and State with its mandate that “no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed”.

I believe that morality is central to our Constitution; otherwise it has no moral power to compel people to abide by it. Religion and morality have always been intertwined in our Constitution. However, today, I believe that the morality which has emerged from Article II, Section 6 and Article III, Section 5, taken together, is a middle ground morality which is the golden mean between the religious morality of the Catholic Church and the secular morality of the State. With the unity of Church and State, morality tended more to the religious morality of the Church; but with the separation of Church and State, it leans more toward the secular morality of the State, which is consistent with Article III, Section 5. Thus, the middle ground morality allows every Filipino the freedom to choose and decide his position on the RH Bill, and to enjoy or suffer accordingly the consequence of his free choice and decision. Without human freedom, there is no morality. Whether a person follows religious morality or secular morality, in the final analysis, it is a person free choice and decision that makes him moral or immoral. It is neither God nor religion that makes him moral. God and religion are simply deterrent to immorality.

In conclusion, I believe that the Catholic Church should leave to Congress whether it should pass or reject the Reproduction Health, in accord with aforesaid Articles of our Constitution.

The Social Phenomenon of War in Democracy

Dr. Romulo G. Bautista

Consultant, Social Ethics Society

This paper is about war in general and in particular war in Muslim Mindanao, from the standpoint of the Philippine Constitution.

Human history until the end of World War II is replete with armed conflicts which did not effectively threaten the existence of planet Earth or the continuity of the human race because there were survivors on both sides of the warring people. But contemporary war with weapons of mass destruction is qualitatively a new phenomenon. We could no longer use the conventional terms homicide or genocide to describe a nuclear war which is .capable of wiping out not only the existing human values, but the very possibility of creating any further human values. We must, therefore, invent the term biocide to describe the killing off, at one stroke, of all forms of life – plant, animal, and human. Such is the technical possibility which has now emerged in the development of nuclear weaponry. We must confront this threat of war in democracy.

In view of the changed character and consequence of war today, there is urgent need to rethink the problem of war in relation to the concept of democracy. Responsible philosophers used to distinguish between just war and unjust war, when there was a need to justify the declaration of war. Is this distinction still valid today? Is war in Muslim Mindanao just or unjust? We need to undertake a new moral evaluation, specifically whether contemporary war, particularly a nuclear war, is just or unjust. As main reference to this question, take note of the following provisions of Article II, Section I of our Constitution –

“The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them”.

Let us view war from the standpoint of our Constitution. It is important to note that war as we are speaking of it is not an activity of individual Filipinos as individuals. It is not even an activity of large Filipino groups just as large groups. It is equally important to note that we, as individuals or groups of individuals, live in a democratic state where the sovereign power of the government emanates from us. In times of war, the sovereign state through the government is the only kind of large group which possesses the measures, powers, and authority necessary to carry on the kind of war which constitutes our problem. It is even more important to note that war can be carried on only if individuals as individuals agree to participate. In a sense, it is first a matter between the individual and his conscience, and then it is a matter between the individual and his government.

Considering those facts we need not simply be fatalistic or pessimistic about war. It is far from being a phenomenon which is beyond our human control, like the gradual cooling of the sun. Although war is a social phenomenon, it is also individually voluntary in a very high degree and in a way that makes it humanly controllable. In other words, war is our moral choice, or a choice of our free will. In point of fact, it is more controllable than government itself. In a large part, government is something done to us rather than anything we do; something often silent, elusive, of which we may not even be conscious. It does much of its works through the accepted routines of normal life, by inertia as it were. We as individuals, as workers, consumers or citizens, may never be aware of myriads of enforced regulations, standards, and prohibitions which enter into and determine in so many ways the warp and woof of our daily living conditions in regard to the building in which we dwell and work, our supply of water and other utilities, all that goes into buying, selling, education, entertainment, travel, and the whole social and economic spectrum, To a large extent, we can be governed without knowing it, but we can never fight a war without knowing it. Government without consent of the governed is relatively easy to bring about. War without consent of the warriors is impossible. Conscience, if it has courage of its conviction, can remain in control. These facts make imperative the conduct of moral education in school.

Under the impact of modern democracy, the concept of human rights has become firmly established as standard for regulating the relations between the government the and the persons being governed; as a standard for determining, among other things, the limits of governmental power; the limits beyond which the government has no legitimate authority to exercise power over the individual. The modern democratic tradition is very clear and explicit in its insistence on the principle that, insofar as the government is something having an authority over the people, such authority is never absolute. It is always subordinate, in the final reckoning, both morally and empirically, to the authority which the people have over the government. This is the immediate meaning of the sovereignty of the people. First come human rights, then comes government. This is precisely what President Noynoy Aquino means when he tells the Filipino people, “kayo ang boss ko, kayo ang masusunod”.

The government exists for human beings, not human beings for the government. The use of power, in times of war, must be judged and controlled by relation to human rights; the primary, the precondition to the enjoyment of any other human right, is life; the right to live out and the duty to survive during one’s natural span. The survival of the human persons is the underlying moral realities of war and peace. These moral realities are impliedly recognized, supported, and protected by our Constitution under the following Articles:

• Article II, Section I - “The Philippines renounces war as instrument of national policy adopts the generally accepted principles of internal law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, freedom, cooperation, and unity with all nations.”
• Article II, Section 4 – “The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal or civil service.”
• Article II, Section 8 – “The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursue a policy of freedom from nuclear weapon in its territory.”

The actual problem that revolves around evasion and violation of the afore-mentioned constitutional provisions concerns the entering into war. Entering into war is viewed from different standpoints at different times and different situations. It took so much time for the Philippine Government and the MILF to agree on a common perspective toward the pursuit of peace in Muslim Mindanao and the reduction of the incidence of war in Muslim Mindanao. Moral education in school of the human will shall strengthen the MILF-RP efforts in the tedious process toward peace.

WAR AND PEACE - MORAL PHENOMENA OF HUMAN FREE WILL

Romulo G.Bautista, Ph.D. 

Ethical Development Strategies Phil. Inc.

Stop the War. Give Peace a Chance

Those are twin appeals of the Awat Mindanao Peace Movement which seeks the cessation of war and the settlement of peace in the conflict areas of Muslim Mindanao. The Peace Agreement between the MILF and the RP is a political road map toward that direction. However, the conflict goes beyond politics.

Indeed, war and peace taken together is conflict. And conflict explains why, despite millions of years of efforts since Adam and Eve, people still don’t connect well with each other until today.

My commentary is about the ethical and moral dimensions of war and peace. War and peace do only constitute conflict, they also constitute unity. Now, I approach the ethical and moral dimensions of war and peace from the standpoint of  unity.

I take the view that war and peace taken together is both conflict and unity providing different perspectives of approach, understanding, evaluation, and appreciation about war and peace. My commentary proceeds with the view that war and peace taken together is unity.

War and peace have been intermittent or alternately ceasing and beginning again at certain times for certain periods since Adam and Eve.

Definition of Terms

• Season refers to one of the periods of the year, such as spring, summer, autumn, and winter wherein certain predictable natural phenomena occur, e.g. snowy cold weather predictably comes in winter.  Here, however, war and peace are man-made phenomena which result from human choices and decisions made at any time and at any period of the year.
• Time refers to a particular period or interval. For instance, the interval between “day time” and “night time” of “time”.
• Phenomenon refers to fact or occurrence observed or observable. It does not represent its own existence but essentially that of another. 
• Intermittent refers to phenomenon that is alternately ceasing and beginning again.
• Conflict of Opposites refers to a battle or clash between opposites where one struggles to defeat its opponent.
• Unity of Opposites refers to the state of opposites being combined into a whole. While the opposites naturally exclude each other, nevertheless they remain inseparable from each other and they complement each other to constitute a whole e.g. day and night are opposites yet inseparable to complement each other in order to form “one whole day”. 
• Introspection refers to observation or examination of the mental and volitional processes of my own free will, being the moral source of the intermittent phenomena of war and peace beyond me.. My free will is the moral source of war and peace; my free will and I are identically one.  I am the reality behind war and peace. These are my choices and decisions. But I inter-act with my “socius” (companion). I and “my socius” inter-act with “other socius” with whom we have common interests. “We” are the realities that underlie the intermittent social phenomena of war and peace.

The “we who hate war” and the “we who love peace” are experientially and identically one and the same “we”. It is “we” who choose and decide either to pursue war or to pursue peace.

 The Moral and Ethical Issue – the Survival of the Human Species

What is the ultimate cause of the intermittent social phenomena of war and peace? This is the moral and ethical question of my introspection into the realm of metaphysics, beyond the realm of the political framework of the peace agreement between the MILF and the RP.

The intermittent war and peace are the social phenomena of moral and ethical choice and decision of human free will placed between two alternative options toward the survival of the human specie. This is my answer to my moral and ethical question. The survival of the human species is precisely the moral and ethical issue of my introspective philosophizing in the realm of metaphysics.

Survival is a never-ending struggle of the human species against death. The “will to survive” is ingrained in the free nature of the human species. The phenomenon of war and peace shall continue intermittently for as long as war and peace remain as cogent alternative options for human survival.  War will always remain a cogent option to men who perceive it as the right and good way to survive; while peace will always remain a believable option to men who perceive war as the wrong and bad way to survive. These are my conclusions deduced from my metaphysical philosophizing..

My philosophizing does not tell that my conclusions or positions are right or wrong, true or false, but it has certainly given me the ground upon which I commit my efforts to help shorten the time and the season of war, simultaneously with my efforts to prolong the time and the season of peace.

The Metaphysical Origin of War and Peace

The “leap of faith” of my free will enables me to start my metaphysical introspection at the following biblical passage, which describes how war and peace originated from the moral choice of Adam when he chose the negative command of God, after which he realized the difference between good and evil and the difference between right and wrong:

‘The Lord God put Adam in the Garden of Eden;

He commanded him, “You are free to eat from any tree,

But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of

Good and Evil” (Genesis 2; 15-17, Old Testament).

The phrase “free to eat” signifies Adam’s freedom, right to live, and duty to survive. God’s commands consisting of one positive command and one negative command provided Adam with a code of his moral choice and a situation which activated the exercise his freedom of choice between two alternative options to survive – to survive in accord with the positive command, or to survive in accord with the negative command. Survival is a metaphysical necessity (duty) which paradoxically made Adam psychologically free. Metaphysically, when Adam was hungry, he must necessarily eat to survive, because he could not choose not to eat and not to survive. In other words, he was not metaphysically free to choose to eat or not to eat, but, he was psychologically free to choose what, when, where, and how to eat. God respected Adam’s psychological freedom to choose between “what he was commanded to eat” and “what he was forbidden to eat”. Adam freely chose the second option, Thereafter; he learned the difference between good and evil, and the difference between right and wrong.  Since then, we know the difference between good and evil, between right and wrong; and we have been choosing intermittently between good and evil. All our choices are reducible to the categories of good and evil. And many of our good choices are done the wrong way.

Psychologically, we choose evil because we perceive it to be good to us. This is why we have the phenomenon of repentance. By the way, we should not confuse good with right, and evil with wrong. Right and wrong refer to a code or standard which measures the goodness and badness of our free (moral) acts. In the case of Adam, the ethical codes of his moral (free) acts were the twin commands of God. In the present time, our ethical codes are the Ten Commandments handed down from Moses.  By virtue of the ethical code, we should say that what is morally good is always ethically right, but what is ethical right is not always morally good. Survival is always morally good, but there are ethically right ways and there are ethically wrong ways to survive.

Unity of War and Peace

Metaphysically, the “good will” and the “bad will” do not represent distinctly “two wills”, but they represent the two distinct moral dimensions combined in one ‘free will’. Peace is the social phenomenon of good will (good faith), while war is the social phenomenon of bad wills (bad faith).

War and peace, taken together is unity. I am inspired to lean my view toward unity of war and peace, in accord with the following declarations of the Ecclesiastes (3:1-8) in the Old Testament:

“There is a time for every thing,

And a season for every activity under heavens:

A time to be born and a time to die,

A time to plant and a time to uproot,

A time to kill and a time to heal,

A time to tear down and a time to build’

A time to weep and a time to laugh,

A time to mourn and a time to dance,

A time to be silent and a time to speak,

A time for war and a time for peace

A time to hate and a time to love,”

The Ecclesiastes began his enumerations with, “There is a time for everything and a season for every activity under heavens”. This means that each phenomenon has its time and season which are inseparable.  Moreover, the conjunction “and” signifies that while opposite phenomena are by nature exclusive of each other, nevertheless they are inseparable from each other and complementary to each other. I am saying that the conjunctive “and” means that two opposite phenomena represent two distinctly separate experiences of one and the same reality called “I”, in the same way that the head and the tail of a coin do not represent two coins but two opposite sides of one and the same coin; or “daytime” and “nighttime” are two distinct aspects of one and the same “time”. But the “I” observes the opposite phenomena, one at a time because each phenomenon has its own time and season to happen, alternately ceasing and beginning again.

MILF-RP Agreement not Valid for All Times and for All Seasons

War motivates the pursuit of peace. It makes no sense to pursue peace if there were no war. And human history is replete with intermittent wars with weapons getting deadlier and deadlier through the centuries. 

The deadlier the weapons of war become, the more complicated the negotiations for peace agreement become, and the greater the ethical and moral challenge become to men of good will! A peace agreement is a phenomenon of good will.

Basically the Agreement between the MNLF under the Chairmanship of Nur Misuari and the RP under the Administration of President Cory Aquino and the Agreement between the MILF under the Chairmanship of Aljad Murad Ibrahim and the RP under the Administration of Cory’s son, President Noynoy Aquino, have the same objectives: The cessation of war and the settlement of peace in Muslim conflict areas of Mindanao. The MNLF-RP Agreement sought the realization of the objectives thru the creation of ARMM, while the MILF-RP Agreement seeks to realize the objectives thru the creation of the Bangsamoro which will replace the failed experiment of ARMM.

Given the metaphysical ground for cessation of war and settlement of peace in the Bansamoro, the political MILF-RP Agreement should not be expected to last beyond all times and beyond all seasons. Any peace agreement is only as durable as the duration of the circumstances of the good will of the contracting parties and their supporters. The desire for permanent peace remains fixed and permanent, but the circumstances of peace do change with the times and seasons. And the circumstances of any peace agreement do change with the times.

We should, therefore, moderate our optimism. The MILF-RP Agreement is a proof that any Agreement of whatever nature is workable may be for a short term, may be for a medium term, or may be for a long term, but never for an “endless” term. Each Agreement of whatever nature has its own time and its own season; no Agreement is good “for all times” and “for all seasons”.

The Threat of Nuclear War is real

Today we have the real threat of a nuclear war with the deadliest weapon of mass destruction, which will cause mutual genocide or mutual annihilation of the protagonists, as well as biocide which will annihilate all other forms of life in our planet. Weapons per se do not kill people; it is people who kill people, with or without weapons. Deadly weapons are merely instruments of peace to deter war, but they do not eliminate war per se.

The nuclear war is a real threat to men of good will (good faith). The threat of war is ever present in men of bad will, otherwise known as bad faith. Our greatest threat today is not the threat of a nuclear war per se, but the threat coming from men of bad faith who might be in possession of nuclear weapons..

There will always be a season of war alternating with a season of peace in Mindanao and elsewhere in the country. Fortunately, we have no threat, not yet, of nuclear war in Mindanao and elsewhere in the country. Nonetheless, men of good faith (good will) should work together to devise ways on how they could realize a longer season of peace and a shorter season of war.

The greatest challenge today to men of good will is to enhance the ethical and moral education of the human will to choose peace than to enhance the intellectual education of thehuman mind to understand what is peace is all about.. Peace is a free choice of an educated human will, not a choice of an educated mind. 

Peace is a phenomenon of “good will” (good faith) of free will. “Peace to men of good will” proclaims a Christmas song, meaning no peace is independent and separate from the good will of men. I hasten to add that war happen because bad will (bad faith) of men makes it happen.

The signed RP-MILF Agreement appears to be an agreement of good will between the Philippine Government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.

Rational Psychology of War and Peace

If we must choose war as our way to peace, we do not simply stop there. We proceed to choose between “war with greater damage to our lives and properties” and “war with lesser damage to our lives and properties”; and we would certainly choose ‘war with lesser damage to our lives and properties”; but, again, we don’t yet stop there because we still have the option between “war with lesser damage” and “war with least damage”, and we would certainly choose “the war with least damage”. The last choice is the best choice but it is good only for a time and a season, the choice does not eliminate war per se. Thus, we have today the threat of a nuclear war hanging over our heads. We have yet to make our moral choice.

If we must choose peace, , we don’t stop at that but we must proceed to choose between “peace with good benefits” and “peace with better benefits”; and surely we would opt for “peace with better benefits”. But we do not stop our option there; we must proceed to choose between “peace with better benefits” and “peace with best benefits”;; we always opt for “peace with best benefits”, because we always desire the best. But while our option for “peace with best benefits” is our best option, but this option is good only for a particular time and a particular season, because it is not the best “for all times and for all seasons”. For now, the MILF-RP Agreement is considered to be the better option than the MNLF-RP Agreement, between the revolutionary Muslims in Mindanao and the Philippine Government.

Given the circumstances surrounding our moral choice, we could choose the best time to choose peace that promises the longest season of enjoyment, or if war is inevitable, choose war that promises the shortest season of suffering.. We could always attempt to devise the best details on how Filipinos could work together in order to prolong the season of peace and reduce the rates of war. Ultimately, these are the best terms that the MILF-RP Agreement could offer to the people of Bangsamoro and the Filipino people in general.

Opposite phenomena abound around us and they are inescapable, thus, we are always compelled to make choices. The saying “I have no choice” is a misnomer because “no choice is a choice itself!” A person who says he has no choice is a liar.