The draft does two things: it summarizes a series of events, and it presents a constitutionalist's lament over the peoples' disregard of their liberties. The first can be compressed; the second is probably not the form of analysis best calculated to teach the reader something.

The rise of electoral strongmen around the world gives some reason to suppose that Philippine exceptionalism is a tough analytic line to work. It takes you until the last sentence to mention Maria Ressa, whose actual analysis of the techno-social environment you do not discuss or benefit from.

I think there are two viable routes to improvement. You could radically reduce the existing factual discussion, which is basic and can be conveyed in 250 words with abundant links, and then provide in lieu of deploring the irresponsibility of the people for not buying in some actual reason for believing that it makes any difference whether it's this loathsome creature or some other Bongbong pretending to perform democracy and believe in rights.

The other promising route, I think, is to abandon the home-country parochialism and, like Ressa herself, find more general questions that can be asked based not only on one place's history over the last dozen years, but that of the human population as a whole.

How A Democracy Dies – The Philippines and its Constitutional Values

-- By AikenLarisaSerzo - 20 Mar 2022

First, the Terrorists

The Philippine Constitution recognizes certain civil liberties in its bill of rights: freedom of speech, expression, and of the press; and due process. We have witnessed the perversion of these rights by the government in the last six years, through the help of technology and an emboldened regime. This reveals the weak manner by which the values of a constitutional democracy have been transposed on the population.

The development of certain technologies, particularly social media platforms, enabled the Duterte regime to subvert and weaken fundamental rights in the name of national security. In the process, the executive branch together with security forces evolved to be both executioner and judge, in its fight against persons it deems to be terrorists and plotters against the state. There has been news about the use by the military and police of fake and simulated accounts in order to implicate suspects. Social media accounts are hijacked or created to make it look like it is owned by suspected terrorists identified by the law enforcement agencies. Such accounts then publish incriminating posts which would then be the basis for prosecutions.

Then, the Dissenters

However, investigations also reveal that the increased focus of the government on national security is an attempt to weaponize law and use it against political opponents and dissenters. State forces utilized platforms, such as Facebook and YouTube? , to spread propaganda and to redtag, surveille and target suspected government “destablizers”. Activists and human right workers are labelled as communists and criminals. Celebrities who vocalize their criticisms of government policies through the former’s social media platforms have been redtagged by the military. Even a national athlete and the eventual gold medalist in the recent olympics (the Philippines’ first gold medal in history), Ms. Hidilyn Diaz, was publicly declared by the Presidential Chief Legal Counsel to be part of a plot to oust the President. This finding was based merely on the fact that Diaz’ facebook account was followed by certain opposition bloggers.

Then, the Press

Combined with a relatively young constitutional democracy, and a culture of impunity, the state can easily build cases and prosecute dissenters on the basis of content made online.

An adhoc body under the office of the President and other executive agencies, started labeling journalists as communists or supporters of violent groups in order to invalidate their acts, including fact checking, made by the latter.

With a Whimper, not a Bang

An anti-terror law was enacted in late 2020. This expanded the definition of terrorism and the enhanced the authority of law enforcement agencies. The law punishes individuals that are deemed to incite terrorism through “speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners, and other representations”. The law further allows security forces to arrest and detain suspected terrorists up to 24 days without charge.

With a regime that has largely ignored due process, and exhibited low tolerance for dissent, the anti-terror law has the potential to be used by the government to provide a a veneer of legality to its unconstitutional acts.

Recent pronouncements by officials these past few months have further showed that the government’s actions have been extended to include the undermining the integrity of the upcoming national elections, through a campaign of online disinformation, in an effort to perpetuate power for themselves. The state delegitimizes dissent and independent news reporting by painting the messengers of the same as terrorists or communists.

The values of a constitutional democracy are constantly diminished by the repeated actions of select executive and law enforcement agencies over a prolonged period of time. The population is rendered desensitized by the ubiquitousness of the impunity of the powerful, continuous red tagging, and absence of due process. The few that speak out are then subdued by suspected government forces through legal or extralegal means. An independent group found that at least 61 lawyers have been killed under the current administration, most were killed while working. This record is higher than the combined number of lawyers that have been killed in the last 50 years, under 6 different administrations. A disturbing number of activists, human rights defenders, and journalists have also been killed.

The Philippine constitution protects an individual’s freedom to voice its criticism and opposition against government policy and actions. The constitution further protects the freedom of the press. However, similar to the experience of a civil rights lawyer in the United States vis a vis the Patriot Act, “Fear is manipulated and the tools of the penal system are applied to inhibit people from speaking out”. At least in the US, there is an effort to justify the curtailment of certain rights as one recognized under an existing law. In the Philippines, the President created a culture of impunity, and empowered law enforcement and presidential offices to carry out actions on the basis of the President’s speeches or policies. Not always law. There is no effort to make it sound like the acts are lawful or constitutional.

If a constitution is supposed to codify the values of a society, the state of affairs in the Philippines may show the weakness of transposing constitutional principles in the absence of a buy-in from the population to actively adopt these values. Worse, given the high satisfaction rating of the President, we have seen the absence of a general condemnation and apparent anger from the people (from which all power is supposed to emanate) against the government. Given the high satisfaction rating of the President, there appears to be no passionate clamor to defend the individual’s constitutional rights from increasing government encroachment.

Should this culture continue to create a cloud of both fear and indifference, the country’s soul as a constitutional democracy may be in peril. This is how a democracy dies. As aptly described by Nobel laureate Maria Ressa, what we’re witnessing is a death by a thousand cuts.

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, AikenLarisaSerzo
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.