Gardeners are hearing it up and down this beleaguered archipelago. Their moral leaders are about to make a pronouncement on the current political situation, as they did back in 1986 (Edsa I), and again in 2001(Edsa II), but not in 2005.
In 1986 and 2001, as a result of their moral pronouncement, regime change became a moral necessity.
Mila Drilon, Cory Aquino and Franklin Drilon
When they cautioned against regime change in 2005, such change did not come about despite Cory Aquino’s taking to the streets demanding that change. With her then were son Noynoy, good friends Butch Abad, Franklin Drilon, Cesar Purisima, Dinky Soliman, Ging Deles and a few others now known as the “Hyatt Ten” but without Cardinal Sin who had already died.
Although the Hyatt ten failed in 2005, they “made it back to power” only five years later, in 2010 – after Cory’s passage to the Great Beyond enabled her to pass on to her son a surge of popularity in the wake particularly of corruption charges then flying uncontrolled against the Arroyo couple.
Gardeners may be forgiven their curiosity now. What are the principles that guide, say, the Catholic bishops of this country to make or not to make regime-changing types of moral pronouncements? Do they have a “book” to go by? In fact they do, and it is called the Church’s Social Doctrine.
Many years ago, the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace made a “brief” 600-page “Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church” that touched on the whole gamut of topics relative to integral and solidary humanism, complete with notes from bible and tradition and into the updates from Leo XIII to St. John Paul II, through St. John XXIII and Vatican II.
In reviewing the Compendium, gardeners made the following notes:
1. Society needs governance; people want a strong leader but not a tyrant.
At the beginning of its history, the people of Israel are unlike other peoples in that they had no king, for they recognized the dominion of Yahweh alone. It is God who intervenes on Israel’s behalf through charismatic individuals, as recorded in the Book of Judges. The people approached the last of these individuals, Samuel, prophet and judge, to ask for a king (cf. 1 Sam 8:5; 10:18-19). Samuel warned the Israelites about the consequences of a despotic exercise of kingship (cf. 1 Sam 8:11-18). … In the end, Saul is anointed king (cf. 1 Sam 10:1-2), chosen by Yahweh (cf. Dt 17:15; 1 Sam 9:16) and consecrated by him (cf. 1 Sam 16:12-13)… to make God’s dominion and plan of salvation visible (cf. Ps 72). The king, then, is to be the defender of the weak and the guarantor of justice for the people. The denunciations of the prophets focused precisely on the kings’ failure to fulfil these functions (cf. 1 Kg 21; Is 10:1-4; Am 2:6-8, 8:4-8; Mic 3:1-4) as when prosperity is achieved merely to serve the few rich and neglect the majority who remain poor and excluded [see para 377of the Compendium].
How about Jesus? What was his take on political power? Jesus refused the oppressive and despotic power wielded by the rulers of the nations (cf. Mk 10:42) and rejected their pretension in having themselves called benefactors (cf. Lk 22:25), but he did not oppose political authority as such. In his pronouncement on the paying of taxes to Caesar (cf. Mk 12:13-17; Mt 22:15-22; Lk 20:20-26), he affirmed that we must give to God what is God’s, implicitly condemning every attempt at making temporal power divine or absolute. At the same time, temporal power has the right to its due: Jesus does not consider it unjust to pay taxes to Caesar. [see para379.]
2. The social nature of the person is the real basis of political authority and it must be exercised within the limits of morality.
Christian moral leaders have always considered different ways of understanding authority, taking care to defend and propose a model of authority that is founded on the social nature of the person. “Since God made human beings social by nature, and since no society can hold together unless someone is over all in charge, directing all to strive earnestly for the common good, every civilized community must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its author”. [See para 393]
Political authority is therefore necessary because of the responsibilities assigned to it. Political authority is an instrument of coordination and direction by means of which the many individuals and intermediate bodies must move towards an order in which relationships, institutions and procedures are put at the service of integral human growth.
Political authority, in fact, “whether in the community as such or in institutions representing the State, must always be exercised within the limits of morality and on behalf of the dynamically conceived common good, according to a juridical order enjoying legal status. When such is the case citizens are conscience-bound to obey”. The mere consent of the people is not, however, sufficient for considering “just” the ways in which political authority is exercised. [See para 394.]
3. Authority must enact just laws, that is, laws that correspond to the dignity of the human person and to what is required by right reason.
“Human law is law insofar as it corresponds to right reason and therefore is derived from the eternal law. When, however, a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; in such a case it ceases to be law and becomes instead an act of violence.”
Whoever refuses to obey an authority that is acting in accordance with the moral order “resists what God has appointed” (Rom 13:2). Analogously, whenever public authority — which has its foundation in human nature and belongs to the order pre-ordained by God — fails to seek the common good, it abandons its proper purpose and so delegitimizes itself.
It is a grave duty of conscience not to cooperate, not even formally, in practices which, although permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to the Law of God. Such cooperation in fact can never be justified, not by invoking respect for the freedom of others nor by appealing to the fact that it is foreseen and required by civil law. No one can escape the moral responsibility for actions taken, and all will be judged by God himself based on this responsibility (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12).
The right to conscientious objection – Citizens are not obligated in conscience to follow the prescriptions of civil authorities if their precepts are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or to the teachings of the Gospel. Unjust laws pose dramatic problems of conscience for morally upright people: when they are called to cooperate in morally evil acts they must refuse. Besides being a moral duty, such a refusal is also a basic human right which, precisely as such, civil law itself is obliged to recognize and protect. [See para 399.]
The right to resist – Recognizing that natural law is the basis for and places limits on positive law means admitting that it is legitimate to resist authority should it violate in a serious or repeated manner the essential principles of natural law.
There can be many different concrete ways this right may be exercised; there are also many different ends that may be pursued. Resistance to authority is meant to attest to the validity of a different way of looking at things, whether the intent is to achieve partial change, for example, modifying certain laws, or to fight for a radical change in the situation, for example, effecting regime-change.
“Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave and prolonged violation of fundamental rights, 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted, 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders, 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.”
Recourse to arms, then, is seen as an extreme remedy for putting an end to a “manifest, long-standing tyranny which would do great damage to fundamental personal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the country”. The gravity of the danger that recourse to violence entails today makes it preferable in any case that more imaginative resistance and alternative-proposal be practiced, which any way have “no less prospects for success”.
4. We should prefer the democratic system of government and the rule of law.
Moral leaders value “the democratic system inasmuch as it ensures the participation of citizens in making political choices, guarantees to the governed the possibility both of electing and holding accountable those who govern them, and of replacing them through peaceful means when appropriate.” Authentic democracy, however, is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person.” [See para 406.] The Philippine context is particularly challenged because of the “hocus pcos” experience wherein people had no way of knowing where their votes had been going, putting into serious question the legitimacy of an incumbent administration, and, if reforms are not made, any other administration to follow.
Within the moral law – Democracy is fundamentally “a ‘system’ and as such is a means and not an end. It does not “fall from heaven” but must be built “brick by brick” first by a few and ultimately by the many.
Its ‘moral’ value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behavior, must be subject: in other words, its morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs”.
In this regard, “the Magisterium recognizes the validity of the principle concerning the division of powers in a State: it is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of the ‘rule of law’, in which the law is sovereign, and not the arbitrary will of individuals”. [See para 408.]
Branches of Government
For example, for the Executive to habitually buy out and run roughshod over the Legislative and the Judicial branches of government is indubitably to be out of bounds and in contempt of the rule of law. No matter how allegedly noble the ends, the means of merely following the tantrums or “arbitrary will of individuals” in the executive branch bodes ill for society as a whole.
Those with political responsibilities must not forget or underestimate the moral dimension of political representation, which consists in the commitment to share fully in the destiny of the people and to seek solutions to social problems. In this perspective, responsible authority also means authority exercised with those virtues that make it possible to put power into practice as service (patience, modesty, moderation, charity, efforts to share), an authority exercised by persons who are able to accept the common good, and not mere prestige or the gaining of personal advantages, as the true goal of their work.
Information and democracy
Information is among the principal instruments of democratic participation.
Participation without an understanding of the situation of the political community, the facts and the proposed solutions to problems is unthinkable.
It is necessary to guarantee a real pluralism in this delicate area of social life, ensuring that there are many forms and instruments of information and communications. It is likewise necessary to facilitate conditions of equality in the possession and use of these instruments by means of appropriate laws, particularly a Freedom of Information law whose delay of enactment is always indubitably the work of a corrupt administration pretending to be honest and clean but always ensuring that nobody really knows.
“Acts of God,” however, always find a way to intervene – as what happened with the “Ben Hur Luy whistle-blowing accident,” no thanks to any prior action by the Commission on Audit or by any media outlet.
In many countries today, the news media is controlled by just a few people or groups. This has dangerous effects for the entire democratic system as this phenomenon merely manifests the ever closer ties between governmental activity and the financial and information establishments.
Making a new start – organize the National Transformation Council
The Philippine situation is quite a moral challenge: “hocus pcos” to start with; the most audacious appropriation of more than a trillion pesos a year with neither authority nor transparency to build an image of incorruptibility and honesty, incontrite and holier-than-thou; a business community in full support so long as the top guy will just let them be. How about the people, the majority populace who get poorer amid the historic economic growth?
Can’t we start anew? This is not a legal question. This is a moral query. Won’t our moral leaders please “advance to be recognized” and find the voice to guide us at this time! FINIS.