Opinion: A sad day for the country and the planet

Photo by Fernando Sepe Jr., ABS-CBN News

NEW YORK CITY - Today we are confronted with two troubling and depressing developments - an attack in Resorts World Manila that left at least 36 dead, and Donald Trump's decision to pull the US out of the Paris agreement.

As per the Philippine National Police, in the Resorts World incident, a lone, "foreign looking" gunman was said to have barged into the casino, opened fire and stole chips - before setting himself on fire. The ensuing fire led to intoxicating fumes that suffocated most of the victims.

Coming at a time when the Philippines is trying to deal with terrorists in Marawi, and the subsequent declaration of Martial Law in Mindanao, the Resorts World incident has raised anxieties, especially among those who fear that it would be used a pretext to declare Martial Law. Reassuringly, government officials themselves have sought to downplay the development, stressing that it's not and shouldn't be considered a terror attack, let alone an attack from ISIS. But this raises the question: What was the basis for the SITE Intelligence Group - media's sole source for the earlier news - to claim that ISIS is claiming responsibility? How would they define a "ISIS attack" anyway? Given the very consequential nature of news of this nature, we need to ask these hard questions.

As a developing story, speculating or raising conspiracy theories is unhelpful, but even so President Duterte should quickly move to calm a nervous nation by giving reassurance that the incident will be dealt with appropriately - without resorting to disproportionate measures. Much will also depend on the level of professionalism of our uninformed services, and of course, our vigilance.

Meanwhile, here in the US, Donald Trump just announced that he will withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement. Though long expected from the world's most powerful ignoramus and America's "worst-ever president", it still comes as a sad turn for the planet, given how the US is by far the biggest carbon polluter in history - and Trump has been preaching about "fair share".

What should give us reason to hope, however, is the stiff resistance he is facing, both here and abroad; even China has been vocal about its support for non-binding but still very crucial Paris deal. "Make our planet great again", said new French president Emmanuel Macron - fast becoming one of the faces of enlightened global leadership. More reassuringly, American cities and companies are saying that they will stand by the agreement regardless of what Trump says or does.

When it comes to our looming - and ongoing - environmental and political crises, I wish that we in the Philippines will have the same resolve.

[Second Opinion] The many voices of Martial Law

by Gideon Lasco
Philippine Daily Inquirer

We cannot pretend otherwise: The nation is sharply divided on the issue of martial law, which President Duterte declared over the whole of Mindanao.

Those who support martial law see it as a logical and commensurate response to a serious threat about which President Duterte has long been warning. In this narrative, enemies of the state have joined forces—drug lords, terrorists, and even the political opposition, and they must be stopped lest they rend our nation asunder. “He knows what he’s doing,” they say of Mr. Duterte. “He’s from Mindanao; why will he harm his own people?”

Those who oppose martial law, on the other hand, see it as a disproportionate response; many fear that it is the next step in the President’s creeping authoritarianism. They cite the precedent of Marcos’ martial law—openly admired by Mr. Duterte even as it was marked by human rights violations. They worry that while the 1987 Constitution has checks and balances against abuses, the institutions tasked to perform them have become inutile and largely subservient.

This debate has taken on an even more divisive turn as some are framing it as a matter between the people of Mindanao and those not from there. “Isn’t it ironic? The people who complain are from Luzon, but martial law is here in Mindanao,” a friend from Davao said, echoing a common refrain in social media. He has a point, but can he speak on behalf of the whole of Mindanao, with all its many voices?

To make sense of people’s attitudes toward martial law, we need to understand where they are coming from. Some people cite the nondeclaration of martial law in Zamboanga City during the 2013 siege as an argument against it, but, as local broadcaster Ronnie Lledo tells me, many in their city actually feel that martial law should have been declared, given what they went through.

For many lumad all over Mindanao, perhaps martial law will be seen as “nothing new,” given the longstanding militarization of their homelands. We speak of “Muslims in Mindanao” as if they were one group, but they, too, have diverse sentiments: Many support martial law, but are gravely concerned about collateral damage. Others are bitterly opposed to it, citing the Moro experience during the Marcos regime.

As for the people of Marawi City, martial law is but part of the ongoing crisis. “This is the saddest Ramadan for us,” they cry, as they narrate stories of survival, escape, hunger, fear and suffering, alongside appeals for humanitarian aid. It is a sobering thought that many Filipinos remain in the crossfire, and that the death toll, civilian and military, continues to rise.

All these are legitimate voices, but theirs are not the only ones. As the death of Senior Insp. Freddie Manuel Solar—who hails from Baguio City—painfully reminds us, the soldiers and police officers in the frontline come from all over the country. Surely their families also have the right to be concerned on whether the fight we’re fighting is just and warranted.

And so does the rest of the nation, including the youth. Omid Siahmard, a UP Manila student from North Cotabato, urged people to stop generalizing their experiences of “feeling safe”—and called for an end to the air strikes, citing the death of a friend’s uncle. Shall we dismiss voices like his? Must we draw lines of legitimacy on the basis of age, region, institution, or religion?

And should we ignore the past? If Digong can invoke the memory of Bud Dajo, should we not invoke the memories of Malisbong? Or, for that matter, Pata Island and Manili?

Personally, I am worried about where this situation might take us: The President’s recent pronouncements (and jokes) are not very reassuring, and neither is humanity’s track record in handling unconstrained power.

But I worry, too, about the divisiveness that martial law is exacerbating and bringing about—a divisiveness that plays into the terrorists’ goal of undoing our cherished institutions and values. As the emerging narratives from Marawi should remind us, there are many voices out there, and the least we can do is listen, especially to those who are affected the most by this deepening crisis.

This essay was originally published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on June 1, 2017: http://opinion.inquirer.net/104447/many-voices-martial-law