Philippine Democracy Online

By Jamil Matalam Ateneo de Davao University                                      After asking students to read Plato’s “The Apology of Socrates” Allan Bloom asks his students what are their verdict; do they acquit or convict Socrates? The question is important because in the Dialogue Socrates was talking to his judges and was not talking about philosophical concepts; Socrates wanted to be judged upon. The great philosopher provided us the method to judge him, i.e. by the method of “truth”. The impeachment of Chief Justice Corona gives us a good opportunity to revisit this most enigmatic Dialogue by Plato.

By Romulo G. Bautista, Ph.D.                                                Prologue All sorts of professional experts, except perhaps the professional philosophers, have been asked to help resolve definitively the war in the conflict areas of Mindanao. It is about time that the professional philosophers in Mindanao should say their views to make a difference on the resolution and settlement on such conflict. I would like to share mine grounded in my modest philosophizing, which begins from my “philosophical” view of the Old Testament. This can be viewed and interpreted from various angles of the readers because they could never existentially transcend their subjectivity.

By Armando Parantar University of the Immaculate Conception                                        I have long contemplated on what to share in this gathering; the thoughts of astounding thinkers have enticed me to begin and proceed through others which have similar tenets and end with a grand finale most probably in the vein of Hegel. At one point I have resolved to stay suspended as if on air; I have no intention to stay on the grounds of any one philosopher if ever I may be found to sound like or echo the ideas of the likes of Heidegger. I don’t intend to speak for anyone of them. Why? I see them as (with respect to a few who have tried it) inutile and just as regular as you and me. At one time, I read about the paradox of modern life stating how human living has stretched the disparity between what should be and what is. I had once that thought that this only applied in politics an...

Dr. Romulo G.Bautista Moral Philosophy is not monolithic, which means that there is no unquestioned and established ethical code of morality for every one to follow, because there is a subtle distinction between “moral” and “ethical”. Both “ethical” and “moral” are similar in meaning in that both have to do with the difference between right and wrong, in which case both can be used interchangeably. But they are dissimilar in that ethical tends to refer to a system or theory or code of judging rightness or wrongness, whereas moral tends to refer to more concrete choices and issues that arouse strong feelings:, in which case “ethical “ and “moral” should not be used inter-changeably. The behavior of unscrupulous student who cheats during exams would be unethical for it violates the school code against cheating; but a military officer who orders the mass killings of innocent people, such as the Maguindanao massacre, would be called immoral because his behavior violates morality.

Dr. Romulo G.Bautista Ethical Development Strategies Phil. Inc.                                Horrible Moral Phenomena in Contemporary Filipino Society I have this text about a foreign investor who complains, saying that “I really have difficulty doing business here. Every one from Customs, BIR, Congressman, Governor, Mayor, Barangay, LTO, Register of Deeds and others,, always ask for a FEE. You should change your country’s name to ‘FEE-lippines, and call yourselves ‘FEE-lipinos’ and your president ‘FEE-noy’”. Now, “Fee” is the euphemism for Bribery. Bribery is the moral phenomenon of the dialectic between bribe-giver and bribe-taker. The text projects the impression that bribery is the ethical and moral norm of doing business in the Philippines. Alas! our nation has earned the perception that it is one of the top-most corrupt nations in Asia and in the world, where “private interests” normally prevail...

By Jamil Matalam, MA Ateneo de Davao University                            The peace talks concerning the insurgency problem in Mindanao always had the character of a negotiation. It is a matter of offer on the one side, a counter-offer on the other, and then impasse and then armed encounters. This has always been its character and will always be because the parties to the negotiations have their own non-negotiable matters to bring into the negotiations, those that cannot be compromised. No doubt it is doomed to failure, if the goal is peace; for peace, and the current events surrounding the issue tells us so, is not a matter of negotiations. Peace is about the truth and is real; it is not a matter of compromise or simply a result of agreement. Peace is not a matter of give and take but the truth.

By Christopher Ryan Maboloc Ateneo de Davao University                                Why is the political party system in the Philippines weak? Why is it that the most Filipinos do not find these political parties instrumental to their well-being? What is the relation between political reform and human development? Why have we not created, for decades now, a mature democracy?