IMPEACHMENT

These appear to be the amazing and amusing time of Impeachments filed against this and that public official for this and that reason as desired and designed by the Political Party in power and as a matter of fact, denounced and repudiated by this and/or those Political Parties in the minority.  So it is that as some kind of a review, recall plus a better and saner appreciation of the objective understanding  and rightful basis of Impeachment, it might be good, proper and opportune to cite verbatim nothing less than Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines duly providing that:

“The President, the Vice President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman, may be removed from office, on impeachment for and conviction of culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.”

It is however also clear and definite that blatantly contrary to the above cited official, formal and explicit Constitutional Provision, Impeachment in this Country is by and large political in appreciation and imposition.  It can be said that partisan politics is what makes the Philippines go round.

So it is that what comes to mind is the short and plain, certain and certified Impeachment of a Chief Justice done quickly and briefly, surely and inescapably on the basis of political affiliation and color.  Reason:  The said Impeachment was in reality and in truth irrelevant to any culpable violation of the Constitution.  The same Impeachment  did not have even but a semblance of treason, much less any element of bribery, graft or corruption.  And even much less had it any reference to a high crime of whatever kind, any semblance of odious betrayal of public trust no matter how and when.

The rather plain and simple truth of the Impeachment Process – which was prepared fast, tried fast, and resolved fast against the accused was the decision of the Supreme Court to give back to the farmers a well-known and contested farmland upon their redemption of its rightful value.  Heretofore comes to mind the elementary truth that farmers and farm go together hand-in-hand, so to speak.  In the event that there is a capitalist between them, this does not necessarily cancel the said pairing unless the farmers – pursuant to justice and truth – in fact altogether hand their farm over to the capitalist concerned after a fair and consummate business transaction.

Question:  Would the Impeachments being now contemplated or even already decided against this and that well-known public official be likewise processed according to but political affiliations with their pursuant colors?   

HUMAN RIGHTS IN GENERAL

On the matter of human rights in general terms, their significance, relevance and exercise after their individual specification as generally known and done – such as the Right to Life, Right to work, Right to Education, Right to Religious Freedom and other basic legitimate rightful human claims – it might be good to have a look at them in a more generic and practical way for their better understanding and appreciation, more salutary perception and observance.  So it is that after the specification of Human Rights one by one with their respective notions and connotations, it is also relevant and proper to have even but a short look at them in general terms or in a generic way.  And it is in this spirit and with that purpose that the following short simple pointers are hereunder made:

First:  When taken as a noun, the word “right” means a just claim, a reasonable demand, a legal title.  When understood as an adjective, what is right means something just, proper, true.  It is clear that the latter (adjectives) is simply by way of making conclusions from the former (noun) akin to the distinction between what is descriptive and substantive.

Human Rights cannot but be basically  and ultimately premised on human nature and dignity.  The truth is that the Right to Life/Right to Live of every human individual – the yet unborn included – is the fundamental basis and origin as well as the anchorage of all other Human Rights.

Second:  The fact that they are “basic” or fundamental human rights as above said, means that there are also supplementary human rights.  These are either derivatives, consequences, or complements of the former as readily presumed and thus duly provided and even accordingly specified not only by the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also as provided by the 1986 Constitution of the Philippines.

 Human Rights as already well-known though not necessarily observed, are inherent to every human person the world over, irrespective of race, color and creed.  It is not only good to know but also practical to remember that rightful potentates, be this by virtue of royalty or on account of politics, do have a good number of rights.  These however are not human rights proper since they are but appended to someone as on account of position or office.

Third:  The reality, specification and listing of human rights per se do not merely come from the freewill  of people, neither simply from the government nor from the State.  Otherwise, there would be a confusion, dilution and/or downright fabrication  of human rights and consequent obligations.  The objective truth is that human rights are conclusions derived from human dignity which in turn is ultimately founded on Divinity as the Creator of humanity.

Human Rights do not belong to human persons simply on account of their mention, enumeration and observance by the State or the government.  Human Persons have human rights by virtue of their sublime nature and consequent intrinsic dignity.  It is this certain and certified by nature and by law.  Dangerous are those who think/believe otherwise. 

CERTAIN QUESTIONS ARE IN ORDER

These are interesting times accompanied by interesting questions that may bring to fore quite interesting answers.  In other words, there seems to be some down-to-earth queries long since existent in the minds and hearts of people that likewise seem to have remained unanswered one way or another, to this date and time.  In the same way, there seem to be certain presumptions or assumptions among people that are false in substance and implications for so many times in so many ways.  For example:

Why is it that the majority is not always right in the same way that the minority is neither always wrong?  So it is that the majority does not always elect or put into  political power those who are expected to promote and protect their legitimate interests and rightful concerns.

Why is it that as a matter of course, the rich purposely become richer while the poor as expected become poorer?  Avarice and contentment in material possessions appear to be mutually exclusive.  So the conclusion is the rich become richer while the poor become poorer.

Why is it that not really a few law enforcers eventually become lawbreakers in the course of time?  The usual reasons for such living contradictions are character flaw, deficient value formation or a given personality disorder – if not plain avarice and/or carnal designs.

Why do some public officials become synonymous with agents of graft and corrupt practices?  In the last analysis, this sad and saddening phenomenon finds its premise, one way or another, in the maxim that absolute power corrupts  absolutely.  Such is the rule with but a small number of exceptions.

Why are there people – movements and syndicates -  who dedicate their lives to reaping the lives of others, in sowing fear and anguish as a matter of course?  Errant value system, uncultured culture, adverse personality constitution are the usual causal factor/factors of such errant disposition.

Why is it that most of the victims – runners, sellers, users – of prohibited drugs are counted among the poor?  Poverty is usually not the cause of virtue but the origin of vice.  What is worst to think about and saddening to consider is that the drug producers and providers are the wealthy individuals.

Why has human life become cheap?  Because there are individuals who do not value it and cannot value it either when they are already dead.  Because of no less than a special all-out “war” that has been declared against the handlers and users of prohibited drugs.

Conclusion:  Where are the People of the Philippines going?  Eventually towards the right way, the right time somehow.  There were worst times that came about.  There were worst events that took place.  There were even worst feelings felt and perceptions harboured.  But the Filipinos are still basically up and about.  There is something in the Filipinos that is sterling and noble.  And there is something in the Good Lord that makes Filipinos somehow special.

PEACE IS BORING

This seems to be the common thinking and consequent feeling of a good number of people and their Countries the world over:  Peace is unexciting, tiring and boring even.  When there is but simply unity and concord, when harmony and silence are but the signs of the times – these are also found in cemeteries all over the globe.  So it is that peace is boring.  And this appears to be perception, the impression and feeling of people at these times and age.  Again:  These are the days when people appear to be uncomfortable and disoriented even when peace reigns among them or among Nations.

So it is that wars are very exciting. Terrorism is very stimulating. Conflicts or dissensions are very interesting.  Killings are trilling.  Justice is passé. Truth, ethics and morals – never mind.  So it is that “Rest in peace” is but for the dead.  And so it is that nuclear missiles are better made, more perfected and wherefore more deadly and devastating they become.  The same is true with submarines, warships and warplanes.  The same too is the rule with tanks and cannons, guns and bullets which are continuously manufactured, fervently sold and/or donated among Countries though but with the existential friendship, with but pneumatic accord.

So it is that hideous massacres take place here and there, every now and then – openly or surreptitiously.  Indiscriminate killings take place anytime, anywhere, as a matter of course in many Countries.  Thus it is said that those earnestly advocating population control through all possible ways and means, are not exactly tearful because of the continuous loss of lives which is synonymous to less people in number through less multiplication of human lives – less food, shelter and clothing needed, but at the same time more economic underdevelopment assured and secured.  Thus a good number of anti-population people think and feel.  Let there be more killings so that more socio-economic development comes to fore.

And here at home – without the least intent of offending anybody in anyway – there is even a Martial Law declared somewhere with the advent and activism of local and imported terrorists with the avowed task of wasting the lives of others and thus causing havoc and fear.  More.  There are killings day and night in the streets, in houses here and there on account of a “war” declared against something and some individuals therein involved.  The truth is that it is no longer odious nor surprising when dead bodies with heads wrapped with duct tapes, placed in plastic bags, thrown and found in the streets, in dump sites, i.e., anywhere, anyhow.  There are also more mortal treatment of young individuals, the violation of children included – girls in particular.  So it is that even fraternity and fratricide appears to go hand in hand during these days.

Hence:  Let there be peace – for the good of man, for the welfare of society, for the humanization of the world.  Wars and violence, murders and killings, criminality and lawlessness – these are not for the wise, the civilized, the sane.  So it is that peace is exciting for man to be human, for society to be civilized, for the world to be progressive. 

BUSINESS AND ITS GOALS

Sound reason and proper ethics plus true faith and right morals have defined the innate nature and inherent finalities of business – or goals.  Here:  Businesses should be characterized by their capacity to serve the common good of society through the production of useful goods and the promotion of beneficial services – their workers in particular.  Businesses also perform a social function, creating opportunities for promoting  and enhancing the common good and welfare of the people in general.  So it is that business primarily intended merely for the profit, benefit and welfare of capitalists – the principal as well as auxiliary ones – without honest-to-goodness concern for its beneficial impact to the general public – is de facto a curse.

So it is that no business may be but for itself – its own profit, benefit, growth – without regard for the common good of society.  However, this is not to say either that business should be altogether for the interest of the general public in line with the nature and finality of charitable organizations.  In other words, while business properly speaking, should not be divested of its due and legitimate incomes and other benefits for its owner/owners and partner/partners, neither should it exempt itself from directly and/or indirectly serving and promoting the interests of the society in general.

The production of useful goods, the provision of beneficial services, the promotion of consumers’ welfare should be ingrained in all legitimate business enterprises – in addition to the latter’s profitable legal claims.  Covetous businesses brought to reality by of downright greed is the mortal enemy of consuming society in general.  So it is that nothing less than the Social Doctrine of the Church justly proclaims and duly insists that amoral economy is a big social.  The ultimate casualty of economy divested of morality is the general public, the whole of which in the last analysis is a consuming society.  In other words, business may not legitimately do away with its beneficial social dimension.

The teaching that business has a social function is but saying the following:  Business may not be for itself – its own benefit and advantage, its own good and welfare.  Business may not but have in mind both its ad intra capital interest and ad extra social function.  Business has to attend to and accordingly promote the good and advantage not only of business owners and investors but also the consumer world.  One more thing, business will in fact prosper the more.  The more it attends not only to the profits it makes but also looks after the welfare of those patronizing it, the more profitable even the business becomes.  Translation:  Business and its patrons are both beneficiaries – in the last analysis.

None of the above observations about Business and its Goals is complicated to understand, much less impractical to comply with.  They are but mandate of ethics and dictates of morals ingrained in business as a human activity.  So it is that the more business becomes pro-self, pro-profit,pro-income, the more people look at it with disdain and anger.  Such is exactly the case of the business of fuel and electricity in the Country.  Their Capitalists become richer while the consumers become poorer.