I AM A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE WHO STANDS UP FOR DIGNITY IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE

 The Joint COMELEC-CSC Advisory on Electioneering & Partisan Political Activity summarizes the prohibitions against and allowances for partisan political activities among government employees in general. 

 

However, in enforcing this Advisory, consistent with its role as indicated by its title Advisory (i.e., a set of guidelines or food for thought), the prohibitions are to be interpreted and enforced according to the purposes for which they have been imposed and the exclusions that have been crafted to temper the otherwise overbroad language of these prohibitions.

 

The general prohibition against partisan political activity is meant to insulate the government from activities that will spend government resources for particular candidates; allow government employees to discriminate against others who support opposing political candidates; and enfeeble the provision of government service. 

 

Hence, the expression of political beliefs and the support for the candidacy of political candidates that will not result in these adverse consequences should not be covered by the prohibition. The prohibition cannot be enforced without first considering the purposes for why the prohibition has been imposed. 

 

The reason for this is the inclusive right to free expression in the Constitution that does not discriminate between government and non-government employees. So long as the purposes of the prohibition are met, government employees enjoy the right to freely express the contents of their right to believe and right to have a conscience.

 

The general prohibition must also be understood in the context of the express exclusions from the prohibition. Notably, these exclusions were the products of a case-by-case analysis of the prohibition by the Supreme Court – proof that indeed the prohibitions are not meant to be implemented blindly and bluntly but contextually. 

 

The Advisory itself understood the exclusions in a general and loose manner, to protect the fundamental right of every person to believe and express this belief, especially on matters of elemental importance, such as the manner by which society will be governed and the persons who will be governing.

 

The exclusions, as summarized in the Advisory, are –

 

a)        Casting one's vote - Quinto v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189698, 22 February 2010. 

 

b)        Expressing one's views on current political problems or issues - Quinto v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189698, 22 February 2010; People v De Venecia (1965)  

 

c)         Mentioning the names of candidates or parties whom one supports; -  Quinto v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189698, 22 February 2010; People v De Venecia (1965)  

 

d)        Letters (a) to (e) of Paragraph 8 of this Joint Circular, when performed for the purpose of enhancing the chances of aspirants for nomination for candidacy to public office by a political party or coalition; 

 

e)        Public expressions, opinions, or discussions of probable issues in a forthcoming election, or on attributes of or criticisms against probable candidates to be nominated in a forthcoming political party convention;  

 

f)          Social media functions such as "liking," commenting, "sharing," re-posting, or following a candidate's or party's account, unless these are resorted as a means to solicit support for or against a candidate or party during the campaign period - Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, 11 February 2014

 

For advocates of free expression, especially where none of the purposes for which the prohibition has been imposed, government employees may justify their partisan political activities by grounding these within the obvious parameters of the exclusions.

 

For instance, do not solicit support expressly. Mention the names through favorite media, but do not say vote for. Implied support, or incidental solicitation of support, is not punishable; it is not covered by the prohibition - Quinto v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189698, 22 February 2010; People v De Venecia (1965). Comment on a social or political or moral issue, and say why this or that candidate does not stand for the issue. This is excluded from the prohibition.    

 

To stress, the idea is to resolve whether the prohibition has been breached contextually. Anything done in good faith and as a result of a government employee’s conscientious beliefs would not fall within the prohibition. Government employees are stakeholders as anyone else. It does not hurt to be a government employee who stands for dignity in government service, especially from those echeloned at the highest levels.  

(name of author withheld for anonymity)

The craze on Duterte and why I did not go crazy on him

[Caveat: This is my opinion and personal position, and I do not claim to be right (because I am left J ). Everyone is entitled to her own thoughts. “I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” (Voltaire) Cyber bullies be damned! Those who bully others just don’t have a better argument.]

Quite a number of close friends and relatives are in the craze, actively campaigning and spending their own money to campaign for Duterte. I have always been wary since day 1, but I continue to respect the position taken by these friends and relatives, and will never let electoral politics get in the way of my relationships with them.

I do not refute the reality that in Davao City, where Duterte has been mayor for several years, is more peaceful than other major cities in the country. Being a non-smoker, I love Davao’s rule on banning smoking in public places, and the political will to ensure its implementation. I acknowledge the fact that criminality is at a minimum, and I could easily report a tax-driver overcharging the fare and be assured of an immediate action. Yet I shudder at the thought that Duterte maintains a “death squad” at his beck and call.

Duterte and the Davao Death Squad

The existence of the “Davao death squad” has always been a public knowledge, talked about in whispers and behind doors, yet widely known to be true. Even as Duterte double-talked on its existence, the operations of this “death squad” persisted with impunity under his administration. There were times when he denied the existence of this vigilante group, and there were times when he admitted it. Duterte made a denial before the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Philip Alston during his visit in 2007. Even with this denial, the investigation of Alston showed the clear existence of the death squad as he met with survivors and families of victims.

According to Alston:

“A death squad operates in Davao City, with men routinely killing street children and others in broad daylight…….It is a commonplace that a death squad known as the “Davao Death Squad” (DDS)  operates in Davao City. However, it has become a polite euphemism to refer vaguely to “vigilante groups” when accounting for the shocking predictability with which criminals, gang members, and street children are extrajudicially executed. One fact points very strongly to the officially-sanctioned character of these killings: No one involved covers his face. The men who warn mothers that their children will be the next to die unless they make themselves scarce turn up on doorsteps undisguised. The men who gun down or, and this is becoming more common, knife children in the streets almost never cover their faces. In fact, for these killers to wear “bonnets” is so nearly unheard of that the witnesses I interviewed did not think to mention the fact until I asked. None of those with whom I spoke had witnessed such persons covering their faces, and one knowledgeable advocate informed me that they do so in no more than two cases out of one hundred.

The human cost is very high. Since 1998, when civil society organizations began keeping careful records, over 500 people have been killed by the death squad. Up until 2006, these victims were generally shot; since then, stabbings have become more common. I spoke with witnesses and family members of 8 victims and 1 survivor, and I reviewed the case files of an additional 6 victims and 3 survivors. These interviews gave some insights into how these killings take place and the enormous emotional damage they inflict on family and friends. The executions generally respond to suspicions of petty crimes, are preceded by warnings or notifications that clarify their significance, and are carried out publicly and with methodical indifference.”[1]

The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) conducted its own investigation. In a statement released in 2012, the CHR said that “It is axiomatic in human rights law that where there are human rights violations, there must be accountability. This case of the so-called Davao Death Squad (DDS) is about more than 200 killings, 206 to be exact, committed in Davao City in the period from 2005 to 2009, and about the search for accountability for those many lives arbitrarily taken. These figures are just what came from the records of the Commission on Human Rights. Figures from other agencies showed more.”[2] “Reliable information indicates that, in 2008, such killings were almost a daily occurrence in Davao City, jumping from a reported 116 in 2007 to 269 in 2008. The killings have clear patterns – similarly described perpetrators, victims and methods – and are rarely the subject of successful police investigations.”[3] In an interview with ABS-CBN a year ago, Duterte admitted his links to the Davao Death Squad and even vowed to kill 100,000 criminals when he is elected president.[4]

All these information about the existence of a death squad, their wanton operations with clear impunity and Duterte’s admission of his connection to this group and his rhetorical declaration of perpetuating the killings, is very chilling. This is an anathema to anyone who respects the rule of law and who recognizes that each one is entitled to his rights and fundamental freedoms, without discrimination.

Duterte’s “friendship” with Quiboloy

I know that we should not judge a person based on the kind of friends that he keeps. But Duterte’s admitted special friendship with Apollo Quiboloy sends an extremely cold chill down my spine. Quiboloy is the head of the religious sect “Jesus Christ: A Name Above Every Name” and claims to be the anointed Son of God. With due respect to his followers, my opinion is not in any way intended to disrespect your religion.

On August 25, 2005, Spouses Aurelio and Erlinda Rillion of Baguio City were arrested and jailed after Quiboloy filed libel cases against them for calling his religious group a “cult”. The Spouses Rillion were not guilty of libel. But they were guilty of fighting so hard for Quiboloy to release their only daughter who was then a minor, from his power and custody. The Spouses Rillion claimed that Quiboloy bamboozled and brain washed their only daughter – a beautiful child – into giving “religious” services at his mansion in Davao City. The Rillions never saw their daughter since then. Aurelio passed away without ever seeing her daughter. Erlinda continues to hope for her daughter to return. (You can find numerous resources about this on the web.)

On April 29, 2008, armed men riddled with bullets the house of Lumad leader Dominador Diarog after he refused to sell to Quiboloy his 2-hectare land adjacent to the latter’s prayer mountain in Tamayong, Calinan, Davao City. Diarog was killed and his wife and four children, three of whom were still minors, were injured. Diarog died and his family will suffer the trauma of this incident, because of their assertion of their right to their property, which was the primary source of their livelihood. (You can find resources about this incident on the web)

I personally heard from Lumads of Calinan, Davao City, their personal stories and experiences about how their lands were taken away from them, their kin killed, tortured or threatened, and how many were forced to give up their lands for a song for fear of Quiboloy and his men. I have heard from some of the Lumads that the Davao death squad is sheltered in Quiboloy’s mansion. Repeatedly, Lumads around the mansion recounted that every time they heard the sounds of motor bikes whirring out of the mansion’s gates, the next time they hear about is about a person killed by the death squad.

Having a public official with clear connections and special friendship to, and connivance with Quiboloy is a horrifying phenomena. I need not elaborate.

Duterte admitted that he received extravagant gifts and millions of pesos from Quiboloy. He admitted using Quiboloy’s private jet and helicopter for his campaign. He never raised a finger to deliver justice to the death of Lumad leader Diarog. Neither did he protect the helpless Lumads who were allegedly forcibly disposed of their lands to build this prayer mountain and mansion of Quiboloy.

I have been repeatedly asked why I am not joining the bandwagon for Duterte. I have my reasons, and these reasons come from the depth of my soul. I may agree with the visions of Duterte for the country, but I will never agree to his means of achieving these.

---

[1] Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, A/HRC/8/3/Add.2, 16 April 2008.)

[2] Statement of the CHR Chairperson, 14 August 2012, http://www.chr.gov.ph/MAIN%20PAGES/speeches/lapr_spch14Aug2012_DDS.htm

[3] Alston, Supra.

[4] Duterte admits links to Davao Death Squad, 25 May 2015, http://news.abs-cbn.com/halalan2016/nation/regions/05/25/15/duterte-admits-links-davao-death-squad-says-hell-kill-100000-criminals.