Fr. Amado L. Picardal, CSsR

After celebrating the 4th anniversary of presidential inauguration, Duterte should be thankful to the 16 million Filipinos who voted for him. He should also thank the priests and religious who campaigned for him and voted for him even after cursing the pope and after the CBCP’s appeal to the faithful to vote according to their conscience.

No survey has been conducted about how many percent of priests and religious supported him. What I have is anecdotal, personal knowledge and observation. In the religious community where I was living most supported his candidacy that I felt like a lonely voice warning them about the dire consequences (some of them organized two victory celebrations in the church compound after the elections). One confrere proudly told me to my face that he was voting for Duterte knowing about my stance. A seminarian wore a Du30 bracelet. There were three confreres who posted their photos on Facebook doing a fist bump. A contemplative nun campaigned in the Facebook for him and even made her pet dog wear a Du30 collar. A diocesan priest who used to join me for my previous bike advocacy posted a DU30 baller in Facebook. Another diocesan priest who was my former student posted a selfie on Facebook wearing a Du30 cap. There were also diocesan priests from Mindanao who are now in the US posting their photo on Facebook with the Du30 fist bump. A priest texted me that most of the priests in his archdiocese in Mindanao were voting for Duterte as president and Bongbong Marcos for vice-president. Even progressive priests and nuns active in human rights and environmental advocacy supported him. A diocesan priest who was my classmate in the seminary told me his support for Duterte was the fruit of his spiritual discernment.  While conducting a clergy retreat in the Visayas I got a negative reaction when I talked about the prophetic ministry and the need to denounce extrajudicial killings and the national leaders behind it.

Thus, it cannot be denied that there were many priests and religious who supported Duterte and can be regarded as DDS (Diehard Duterte Supporters). The question is why did they support Duterte and helped enable him to come to power?

6 July 2020

We at PASA join with the Australian Government in condemning China in passing the National Security Act which will aim to brutally curtail rights and freedoms recognised under International law.  

We also call on the Australian Government to be similarly vocal in condemning the fast track Anti-Terrorism Law railroaded by President Duterte and signed into law on June 4. This was in a climate where UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, in her report to the current 44th session of the UN Human Rights Council, expressed alarm at the Covid-19 virus being used in the Philippines as “an opportunity to silence critics leading to a further accelerated downward spiral of the human rights situation in the country with no accountability whatsoever for the multiple human rights and humanitarian law violations.” 

The Anti-Terror Law of the Philippines is equally draconian as the China National Security Act.  The definition of terrorism is vague and can be used against any one who might disagree with Duterte whether it be persons taking part in legitimate rallies and strikes, or publishing any materials revealing the truth of human rights abuses or government anomalies.  Already farmers, fisherfolk, indigenous peoples, human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists, religious persons and even other politicians have been attacked and red-tagged by a Government Task Force, accused of being terrorists, resulting in false charges or even death.  This law has now added a “legal” cover to continue the crack down on any opposition.

Apart from the vague definition of “terrorist”, the Law gives the police and military the right to arrest and hold people for 24 days with no warrant, no charges and no right to legal council.  This can be on the basis of “suspicion” which again, if we look at what has been happening, gives an open authority to arrest all those red-tagged already.  Those deciding the guilt or innocence of the accused will be Cabinet members and a special judge will be appointed by them to hear the charges. Penalties can be life imprisonment with no right to the ordinary process of appeal.  The countries judicial system is totally undermined and the fundamental right to a lawyer and appeal processes ignored.

Just like the National security Law of China, the Philippine Anti-Terrorism Law also reaches to persons in other countriies who should express their opposition to Duterte’s war on drugs, killing of activists, refusal to release political prisoners, closing down of media, militarization of the handling of the Covid-19 crisis, or any other anti-people policies of the Duterte Government, whether on social media, interviews or attendance at rallies.  This becomes even more worring particularly for Filipinos living in Australia and enhancing culturally and economically Australian society.

Last year, general Parlade, the head of the Task Force specifically tasked with “red-tagging” opposition groups and persons, was allowed into Australia and proceeded to call terrorist and terrorists supporters some individuals and organisations here with no basis.  Included among those “red tagged” was Sr Patricia Fox, spokesperson for PASA, who had been targetted by Duterte in 2018 and forced to leave the Philippines.

We call on the Australian Government:

•             To condemn the passing of the Anti-Terror Act in the Philippines;
•             To vote for the UN resolution proposed by Michelle Bachelet that an independed body be set up to investigate human rights abuses in the Philippines, the undermining of democratic institutions and challenge the culture of impunity.  
•             To press for the continuation of the case in the ICC against Duterte and his war on drugs before the number of victims, including women and children, increases further. 

Lastly we demand a stop to Australian Military Aid to a Government that has no respect for human rights.

UCCP | Posted on July 10, 2020

“But be on your guard. For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them.” (Mark 13:9).

Rev. Dan San Andres Sr., as a servant of the Lord Jesus, is a good, honest, hardworking, and courageous defender of human rights. He is assigned as a Church Worker at UCCP Sipocot, Camarines Sur. His teachings and actions are in accordance with the UCCP’s Statement of Faith, Declaration of Principles, and in fulfillment of its laws, such as the protection of human rights. He firmly believes that protecting and upholding human rights is an imperative based on the UCCP’s Declaration of Principles in Article II, Section 11.

Section 11. In accordance with the biblical understanding that all persons are created in the image of God, the Church affirms and upholds the inviolability of the rights of persons as reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other agreements on human rights, the international covenants on economic, social and cultural rights and on civil and political rights, the 1984 Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and those that relate specifically to refugees, women, youth, children, minority groups and other persons who cannot safeguard their own rights.

Therefore, the ministry of Rev. Dan San Andres Sr., as a servant-leader, in defense of human rights is in line with the UCCP’s belief and teachings. His flocks are not only members of the UCCP, but like Jesus the Good Shepherd, he has other flocks to take care of, including people suffering from oppression and human rights violations (John 10:16).

Rev. San Andres served as Conference Minister of the North Bicol Conference during Bishop Eliezer M. Pascua’s incumbency as Bishop assigned to South Luzon Jurisdictional Area. Currently, he is the Chairperson of the Christian Witness and Service Committee of the Conference. One of the mandates of the committee he is currently leading is to protect and uphold human rights.

As Bishops of the Church, we condemn the accusation hurled on Rev. Dan San Andres Sr. and Jenelyn Nagrampa, who were both allegedly accomplices of the ambush that happened on May 13, 2018, and resulted to the killings of two members of Philippine Army. This accusation are pure lies and fabrication. Rev. Dan San Andres Sr. and Jenelyn Nagrampa were issued a subpoena last October 2019. Through their lawyers and witnesses, these allegations were answered and refuted in December 2019.

According to the members of UCCP Sipocot, Camarines Sur, last May 13, 2018,  when the alleged ambush took place, Rev. Dan San Andres was physically present in the Church leading the Sunday worship service and they were celebrating Mother’s Day. It is contrary to the Philippine Army’s statement that he was among the alleged NPAs who ambushed the soldiers at that same time and day.

Fabricated cases like these only show that LIES are the foundation of the system of oppression and injustice. This experience has been happening in our nation over and over again since the dark days of MARTIAL LAW. It seems to be the pattern of the social system –to silenced the truth, those who tell the truth, and those who stand for truth.

Therefore, we, members of the Council of Bishops of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP) demand for the immediate release of Rev. Dan San Andres Sr. and Jenelyn Nagrampa. We call on the government to stop the persecution of the Church.

THE UCCP COUNCIL OF BISHOPS

July 10, 2020

Bishop Melzar D. Labuntog
General Secretary

Bishop Joseph G. Agpaoa
North Luzon Jurisdictional Area

Bishop Emergencio D. Padillo
Middle Luzon Jurisdictional Area

Bishop Joel E. Tendero
South Luzon Jurisdictional Area

Bishop Jerome C. Baris
East Visayas Jurisdictional Area

Bishop Feliciana P. Tenchavez
West Visayas Jurisdictional Area

Bishop Ligaya F. San Francisco
Northwest Mindanao Jurisdictional Area

Bishop Hamuel G. Tequis
Southeast Mindanao Jurisdictional Area

Biblical reflections on drift to authoritarianism

Introduction

Let me say at the outset that historically, Christian people have mostly lived under authoritarian rule. The early Jesus followers had to negotiate between the fact that they are ruled by despotic kings and equally oppressive religious leaders and the fact that their faith had to survive under colonial Rome, whose emperors deified themselves and bid them to bow the knee. 

Today, we are seeing once again the rise of authoritarianism, not just in the traditionally totalitarian societies like China or Russia, but in countries that have embraced democracy and now seeing a decline in democratic values and the efficacy of its institutions.

The Philippines is one of them. There was a time when we thought we would return to democracy. Our People Power uprising enabled us to at least restore the institutions that collapsed under the Marcos dictatorship. But very quickly, the old faces of the regime recycled themselves, and the entrenched political and economic elites hijacked the people’s project.

We failed to restructure the political and socio-economic system such that political dynasties are dismantled and economic power is de-coupled from those who hold positions of power.

The return of authoritarianism in the shape of Duterte’s populism is in a way a ‘revolt of the poor.’ The three succeeding decades after People Power saw the tremendous growth of the 2% or so who are in the top rung of the economic ladder, and the massive slide into poverty of those left behind by the digital divide and globalizing forces.

Some months after our February revolt, social activists coming from the three main church traditions in the country — Catholics, the National Council of Churches and evangelicals —  met together to reflect on what we did right and what we could have done better.

I spoke in behalf of evangelicals and said that there were two things that could have served the movement better in returning to democracy: the social insights of our faith, and the resources of our culture. Instead of reflecting a bit more on the social implications of our faith and culture,  we very quickly embraced western theologies that de-mobilized Christians from responding to our political crisis, and allowed foreign ideologies like Marxism to frame our social analysis and action.

These days, we are once again struggling for insight as we grapple with the failure of our democracies and the looming shadow of China’s imperialism.

So how do we live and find the spaces where we can stretch the margins of what is possible given the narrowing democratic space?            

First, some insights from Scripture.

Subverting structures

The Bible’s metaphors on what the church is about – salt, light, yeast – suggest that to give flavor and preserve the best of our cultures, to bring light to people who are in darkness, to penetrate the workings of a system like yeast so that the dough rises, transforming a lump of flour into life-giving bread, — needs only a small minority.

In this sense we are not so much revolutionaries – tearing things down so we can build our own vision of what society should be – but subversives, deep penetration agents who go softly, not attracting attention to ourselves, but quietly influence and transform our spheres of competence and responsibility. This is consistent with the way the Lord Jesus went about his messianic task:

“He will not argue or shout, or make speeches in the streets.
He will not break off a bent reed, nor put out a flickering lamp.
He will persist until he causes justice to triumph, and on him
all peoples will put their hope.”   (Matthew 12.19-21)

This is a very Asian way of going about our business of changing things. Instead of a head-on confrontation, as is the usual western approach, we all tend to abide by the military strategist Sun Tzu’s advice to break the enemy’s resistance without fighting. We see China applying this in its thrusting to dominate East Asia through a policy of attraction and infiltration rather than conquest.    

The Early Church also had to live and endure structures that were oppressive. The Greco-Roman civilization was borne on the backs of slaves. The few who were Roman citizens, like Aristotle, saw a slave as merely “a living tool.”

Under the absolutist rule of the Caesars, there was no way the colonized peoples of Rome could insert themselves into political space. This explains the so-called political conservatism of someone like Paul, who by and large accepted the existing structures and counseled restive Christians in Rome to be subject to authorities. Husbands and wives, children and parents, slaves and masters were merely enjoined to practice mutual submission and carry out their responsibilities out of reverence for Christ. (Ephesians 5.21-6.9)

This new social ethic, however, soon transformed not only the relationships within these structures but contributed to the eventual erosion of these hierarchies.

Today, in our time, while racism, gender and economic inequality continue to exist, they are at least considered socially anathema and morally unacceptable. This we owe  to Paul’s vision that in Christ, ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free.’ (Galatians 3.28)

Sociologists and social historians tell us that it only takes 2% to 5% of the population to turn a country around. You just need a determined minority, what sociologists call a ‘critical mass’, to impact a whole society:  

“We should not underestimate the significance of the small group of people who have a vision of a just and gentle world. In Japan a very small minority of Protestant Christians introduced ethics into politics and had an impact beyond all proportion to their numbers. They were central in the beginnings of the women’s movement, labor unions and virtually every reform movement. The quality of a culture may be changed when two percent of its people have a new vision.”

— Robert Bellah, UC Berkeley

In other words, we need to have a strong missional sense in our vocations, a very intentional project of transforming the institutions where we happen to be. We are to be game changers, turning evil and unjust structures more towards the purposes of God for human society.

Change the narratives

It is not an accident that the first thing an autocratic government does is to muzzle independent media and let loose a flood of propaganda and fake news that will shape public opinion. It was Hitler’s propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels who said that if you repeat a big lie often enough people will eventually believe it.

Mga Isyu nauukol sa Konstitusyon:

1.         Hanggang 50 taon lang ang buhay ng prangkisa. Ang ABS-CBN bilang korporasyon ay mahigit na sa 50 years.

Tugon: Testimonya ni Justice Assistant Secretary Nicholas Ty sa pagdinig sa Kongreso: pwede magbigay ng 50 taon na prangkisa, huwag lalampas.

Halimbawa: Ang GMA network nabigyan ng renewal noon 2017 para sa 25 taon. Ang GMA 70 taon na ngayon at pag natapos ang prangkisa nila ay 92 taon na sila sa 2042.

Pag-Isipan:

•           Magkaiba ang haba ng buhay ng korporasyon sa haba ng prangkisa.
•           Ang pinagbabawal ng Konstitusyon ay ang pabibigay ng isang prangkisa na hihigit sa 50 taon kada bigay. Pwedeng mag-renew pag natapos ang prangkisa.
•           Walang malalabag sa Konstitusyon sa pagbibigay ng bagong 25 taon na prangkisa sa ABS-CBN.
•           Dagdag: Sabi ng isa sa mga sumulat ng Konstitusyon, Atty. Chrisitan Monsod, ang binasang bahagi ng Konstitusyon ng nagsabing bawal ay ayon sa mga pampublikong utilities kagaya ng tubig at kuryente.