The irrelevant and relevant Philippine Left and the Nationalist Revolution

This is the flag of the relevant Philippine Left

Susan Quimpo published on Rappler.com an essay "Why we dismiss the Left" that has generated a quick response from the New Philippine Revolution on 'Why the Left remains relevant". The thing is that both points of view are correct!

The Left is both relevant and irrelevant. That depends on what Left you are looking at. Quimpo who lived through the PH Communist Left's self destruction in the 1980s has the right to say that the this Left has become ideologically petrified. Just look at the social media reactions to Jose Maria Sison's latest internet broadcast!

The other Left is willing to advance its political fortunes within the space provided by the 1987 post EDSA Constitution. In a sense they have been successful but not yet successful enough to capture national power.

There is another Left (which has been largely ignored by 21st century mainstream and social media) that has its incubator in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). My father who always believed that the Nationalist Revolution will eventually become triumphant, had an interest in studying the dynamics and ideology of this Left. My father and I had a lot of animated ideological discussions on this right after the ascendancy of the Cory Aquino regime in 1987.  Over dinner at some Chinese restos in Binondo, Dad and I had our ideological discussions.  My father was right in predicting what would happen in 20 years time. Too bad he isn't here anymore to see it. But perhaps that is his grace. He has been spared the future of years of ineptness and corruption leading to a defenseless Philippine Republic.

 The Aquino regime by restoring oligarchic privileges and the  Communists by rejecting participation in the 1986 Snap Election set back the Nationalist Revolution by several decades and betrayed the Filipino people.

If Cory Aquino had read more books on how to effectively seize (the easy part) and wield (the hard part) power, she would have not proclaimed a revolutionary regime whose only revolutionary act was not to use any revolutionary power at all!  A revolution is iconoclastic and in my opinion,  one can achieve the iconoclasm by retaining Parliament under the 1973 Constitution and since she is the magnanimous President in Parliament, she could have all the powers without removing continuity. She could have packed this Parliament with her people, completely achieving what is needed to be done in a raft of progressive legislation and initiatives. This is the Doy Laurel suggestion. The writing of a more democratic constitution could wait a few years. We know what Cory did to Doy!

I am sure Apolinario Mabini would agree. The Revolution should be secured first before we concern about constitutional form. A Revolution's main goal is social regeneration made possible by overthrowing of the old order.

The betrayal of the EDSA Revolution can be summed up by the failure of de Marcosification  and that no redistribution of wealth and opportunity ever was made. Towards the end of the 1990s came the Erap Cinematocracy (a liberation by illusion). The ironic thing is that the Cinematocracy was made possible by the masses that the Communists idolized.

The problem was the petrified ideologues cannot stomach going into coalition and never will. Even in the student politics of the Federal Empire of Diliman, they can't.

And so we lay down the irrelevance of the Left at this point. Nothing shows the irrelevance of the Left as in the ascent of the Cinematocracy. Of course the Cinematrocracy was eventually demolished by Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the Church and an constructive Supreme Court as reactionary elements. However Erap was no Hugo Chavez. Trapped in his own class he betrayed the masses.

But how do we assess relevance or irrelevance of the PH Left?. It is not in economic indices of the neoliberals and their ideas of trickle down economics or by sticking to Marxist or Maoist orthodoxy but by making sure that the Nationalist Revolution is triumphant.

But how do we make the Nationalist Revolution triumphant is the big question! Who will lead it?

I listened to National Artist Frankie Sionil Jose "incite" revolution at the Faculty Center of the UP in November 23, 2004. Here Sionil Jose as an agent of the Word (sensu Steinbeck!) that the central core of the Revolution is in our history and not in foreign intellectual idols like Marx. Lenin or Mao. In fact according to Sionil Jose,  the Communists idolatry of Mao and Maoism doomed the Communist attempt at revolution. The anti Chinese sentiment is always at the surface of PH society and one reason why CPP-NDF-NPA has no credibility among the majority of Filipinos  for it represents a foreign socialist ideology that is Chinese in its origin and praxis. Jose Maria Sison ignored the objective reality of vehement anti Chinese sentiment among the masses. And so 44 years later the Maoist revolution sputters on!

Again we have to look into our history. The leaders of the Nationalist Revolution were from the middle classes, educated and who were pragmatic enough to accept new ideas.

Sionil Jose believes that the fulcrum of the Nationalist Revolution would be the Armed Forces of the Philippines. In his essays, he notes that the majority of the officer corps of the Armed Forces comes from the lower classes. I attended the Left's tribute to Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution at the UP.  But Hugo Chavez isn't a Communist even he used Marxist analysis to critique Venezuelan society. But certainly he was nationalist.  He was more than willing to allow the oligarchy to exist only if they will support the nationalist Bolivarian ideology. He was  willing to deal with the USA on an equal footing if that will advance the nationalist ideology. In fact he did. Also Chavez had to go on coalition with a spectrum of Leftist parties.   Thus the singing of the "Internationale" at the gathering was very oxymoronic.  It would have been better if the Leftists sang our  first national anthem the Katipunan's "Marangal na Dalit"!

Also the Bolivarian Revolution started out in Venezuela's Armed Forces. The CPP-NPA would go into  knots of the Nationalist Revolution's ideology starts out from the AFP. And indeed it could for a nationalist ideology is always in the Armed Forces.

The Katipunan's ideology can be reflected in the Bolivarian ideology. The central tenets of Bolivarianism would easily fit in with the Katipunan's ideology.

1. Economic and political sovereignty
2. Grassroots political participation
3. A national ethic of patriotic service
4. Redistribution of wealth and opportunity
5. Eliminating corruption

Bolivarian ideas obviously is rooted in Simon Bolivar's ideas and not in Marx, Lenin or Mao.  The Left at the gathering in focusing too much on Chavez' anti Americanism largely missed the point. For the irrelevance of the PH Left is that it is almost exclusively identified as anti American! I have had debated with LFS students who cannot get the idea and sense why if they claim to be nationalist they should like their detested rival partylister Akbayan, rage against Beijing's Imperialism!

 The Nationalist Revolution's main ideologue Apolinario Mabini had a political ideology but barely started on the economic side of it. Mabini admitted his limitations as he was not an economist but a political theorist and lawyer. The American imperialists defeated the nascent Republica Filipina. It would be interesting what economic ideology would have developed in a republic which had secured the Revolution. American imperialism made the Ilustrado class compromise but if the Revolution had been secured, I think there would have been massive redistribution of large landholdings. Mabini recognized that land was the problem, for the whole basis of Spanish domination rested on it and the Roman Church's domination too. It is still the problem and will be until the Revolution is victorious. In a sense the Mabini ideology was preserved by the Iglesia Filipina Independiente. A historian can look into how the ideology was preserved and perhaps our Aglipayan brethren can help us.

A Lefty partylist group in Congress has filed a bill making a college course in Andres Bonifacio required as a counterpart to the Rizal Law instituted Rizal course. The problem is that Andres Bonifacio was not the ideologue. Any Bonifacio course would descend into personality stereotypes comparing him with Rizal. A better proposal would be to study the ideology of the Katipunan and their main protagonists. Perhaps this would make any idea of Revolution more relevant to the young.

The New Philippine Revolution says that revolution is inevitable and we will crave for it. I agree and social media will make it easier. But in our lectures on the Arab Spring revolutions  in UP Diliman's Science, Technology and Society classes, you still have to be on the streets but have to be more imaginative than defacing CHED's gates!

The University of the Philippines neoliberalist direction commits suicide

The tragic suicide of UP Manila freshie 16 year old Krystel Tejada, a daughter of a cab driver and a homemaker, allegedly due to her family's inability to pay the fees, has caused generated rage from the students, alumni, faculty of the publicly funded national university. And rightly so.

A retired professor emeritus exclaimed "That's because UP has become the university of the rich" "UP has to look into its soul which appears to have been lost"

The particulars of Ms Tejada's death and family's financial status has publicly come out and it is beginning to appear that she just fell through the bureaucratic net. And throughout this the issue of STFAP pops out.

Here I won't be speculating on her psychological state prior to her death. For that is not the major issue here and since I am not privy to her psychological condition. I will leave that to the professional psychologists and counselors, should they wish to elaborate on these.

My question is whether the neoliberal direction and policies of the national university has made the vulnerable fall through the vaunted safety nets. Many neoliberal policies have to be revisited including the much maligned Socialized Tuition and Financial Assistance scheme.

Students as a sector of PH society are vulnerable, financially, emotionally and physically. (How many students have been forced to sell their bodies for tuition fees?) This is because education is in itself a commodity and the production of which requires capital. Education of the individual citizen unlike investments in housing while it  like housing appreciates in value, cannot be resold. Its equity is collective, such as in the general betterment of society where stability is the most precious factor.   Nonetheless,  all heads of government from Venezuela's 21st century socialist icon, Hugo Chavez all even the once socialistic, but meritocratic redistributionist, free market icon and  founding Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew knew that education has to be subsidized by the state since it is the best way of redistributing wealth. The state has to intervene or even determine the direction of education policies in basic education to ensure the nation  is stable. It is a given that higher education is autonomous in teaching and research. It is but it cannot be autonomous in its ways of profiteering from the vulnerable student sector.  Singapore heavily subsidizes public education at 20% of its national budget.

With this idea of redistribution of wealth through education, does UP's STFAP stand up to this? The answer is it doesn't. Redistribution is not just letting the fee paying subsidize those with a lesser ability to pay the fees. Redistribution means having the wealthy pay more taxes for public eduction (basic or higher) whether their kids pass the UPCAT and attend UP or any publicly funded university, or basic education schools or not. A redistributionist Philippine state would put a VAT on private education services. Anyway a lot of people put a higher brand equity on private education brands and so it is justified.  The United Kingdom has a VAT for private education and so does Ireland and so this is not a fancy idea. Singapore's 7% GST is partly funneled to public education subsidies. Singaporeans who opt to attend a private university will pay higher since they won't have the GST rebates and subsidies.  But with the taxes collected, this would mean the government should put a serious attempt to ensure that public education gets to spend its budget most efficiently.

UP's brand of socialized tuition cements class divisions in the national university. We have heard horror stories of parents and some students demanding privileges because they pay the bracket A fees! STFAP is not true redistribution of educational opportunities. It is another form of noblesse oblige and barely lessens the inequity in educational opportunities. In an inequitable society in UP or outside it, the poor have to face bureaucratic paperwork, a zillion photocopies while the haves can easily pay off someone to to this kind of paper pushing. This is a society where inefficiency guarantees inequity.

The administration says that all are subsidized by the state even the Bracket A'yers. It is true the true cost of a semester of UP education is around 90K PhP and the highest fee brackets pay only 22K at most.

But as former Student Regent Krissy Conti has it "Since when has been subsidizing the rich been mutually exclusive to subsidizing the smart?"

Yes, UP leads the nation on public educational policy and STFAP like policies are being proposed by CHED for publicly funded universities and colleges. Should we expect more tragedies?

It is time to revisit UP's policies and in the near term implement policies that improve student welfare, a department that UP is found extremely wanting. Revolutionary ideas and changes are needed.

But with the death of a freshie, these policies have committed its own suicide. It is not a quick death but a slow one. And we have to ensure it does die, so that a tragic untimely death would not have been in vain.

Offending secular feelings (updated)

The conviction of Carlos Celdran on the Philippines Revised Penal Code article 133 “Crimes against religious worship” for "offending religious feelings” has led to some asking if there is such a thing as “offending secular feelings”.

The answer is both a “yes” and a “no” depending on what angle you look at it. It is a qualified “yes” if the secularists (and the Freethinkers) say their position is based on faith and therefore is under the constitutional provisions on religious liberty.

The answer is a qualified “no” if the secularists insist theirs is not a religious position and so they should have a thicker skin with respect to offensive ideas since much of the perceived offence is in the secular sphere, considered as protected speech (unless it incites to violence) and the laws on defamation and libel should offer enough redress of grievance and protection.

Like in Roman Catholicism or any other religious tradition for that matter, there are adherents with a diversity of opinions. The same is true for secularists. There are secularists who hold to an objective basis for secular ideas and there are those who hold to a more relativist position.

Thus the quandary on what constitutes offensive to religious or even secular feelings really is!

However if we look at the arguments presented by lawyers and what the courts have said about it like decisions on the religious liberties of minority congregations like the Jehovah’s Witnesses , we can infer that there is really offence to secular "feelings", especially if these secular "feelings" have something to do with people’s national identity. For instance the Philippine Supreme Court in 1993 upheld the right of Jehovah’s Witnesses not to salute the Philippine Flag on grounds of religious conscience. In 1996, the Supremes also gave exemptions to PH marriage laws to the Witnesses again on grounds of religious conscience.

The Supremes have implicitly established a principle. Religious liberties are protected more.  The reason is that is implied is that the majority of the Filipino people hold to a religious tradition and that reflects on the Constitution which they ratified  within their power as the sovereign  in a republican state. The Supremes have interpreted the secularism of the Constitution as “benevolent to religion” even it does not establish a religion. This is consistent to what the American Supremes said as

 "The Founding Fathers of the United States viewed religion as special" and thus has a positive role to play in the common good of society.  Thus benevolent neutrality respects the role of religion in promoting harmony among citizens of the State. The State according to one Supreme would rather intrude into questions of philosophy of science rather than the theology of religious groups. 

Thus the argument of UP Law Professor Florin Hilbay thus falls flat.   The overarching basis  of Professor Hilbay's arguments is that the Philippine Constitution is secular in intent (true) and hostile to religion (false).

While he states the the duties of the State in protecting free speech, Professor Hilbay fails to state what are the duties of the State in protecting religious worship and expression. Should it be just limited to letting religious organizations exist and to assemble in their places of worship? Or should the State guarantee the freedom to worship of citizens to worship in peace within the walls of their temples?

The American Supremes have said that if a law does not particularly target a specific religious practice, then it doesn't violate then non establishment of religion clause unless there is compelling interest. Is Celdran's conviction within the "compelling interest" of the State to maintain public order? The lawyers I have corresponded to appear to say yes.

Some minority religious congregations have disrupted other congregations in their "Bible expositions" which is tantamount to disrupting freedom of worship. I have seen these on cable TV a few years back. For me the disruptions are offensive and I am not even a member of that congregation.

None of the aggrieved worshipers filed a suit on grounds of Article 133. I wish they had. These disruptions to religious worship never made it to the pages of blurbs like the Philippine Daily Inquirer since these groups are not in the religious majority and most of their members come from the lower classes. None of the disruptors  or disruptees I saw on cable TV belong to the disparaged and lampooned "conyo" class!

Celdran in his bravado probably never expected that at least one in the multi-faith congregation would be offended and at least one is a Catholic and at least one survived law school and the bar at least one will lodge a suit! It is about time he learns that acts have consequences.

And so we get a conviction whose appeal will get to the Highest Court of the Land. Now whether the Supremes on Padre Faura will rule on upholding Art 133 or not remains to be seen but whatever the outcome will be, it will be a landmark decision on the secular nature of the state.

Professor Hilbay by equating the intent of "crimes against worship" to "crimes against free expression" restates the classic false equivalence characteristic of postmodern relativism. 

And to answer Professor Hilbay's question 

"If Msgr. Nestor Cerbo, the complainant in the case, decided to do a Celdran and raised a Satanist placard in a meeting among secularists and post-theists, those poor evolutionists cannot file a complaint for Offending the Feelings of the Rational and bother the good monsignor with a court case."

The post theists and secularists can, if they organize themselves as a religious organization (which the Constitution guarantees, no questions asked!) and if Monsignor Cerbo does his thing with their place of assembly and worship and this disrupts a  service. (There is one photo in social media of a PH freethinker "congregation" and its "high priest" raising "The Origin of Species" for veneration! If that isn't religion, then I don't know what religion is!). If the good Monsignor does this I bet he will get a Celdran conviction.

What Professor Hilbay should advocate is that we have a law penalizing "hate speech" and this would cover the secularists and religious minded alike in equal measure. Will PH society be ready for this? Germany, Canada and many progressive, secular and tolerant countries have laws criminialising hate speech. Germany is one of the first countries to do so by penalising Nazi propaganda. In many countries in Europe, Nazi "hate speech" is criminalised. Before civil libertarians shout their disagreement, we have to realise the tragic history of Europe in World War II and all of that was based on the excesses of free speech!

The respected constitution expert and Roman Catholic priest of the Jesuit order, Rev Dr Jaoquin Bernas appears to imply that we revisit Art 133 and replace it with a more secular provision. This I agree for it will spare the courts on deciding what is offensive to religion.

Also good argument avoids stereotyping religionists as anti evolutionists or even irrational. This is something that the Supremes can wade into since Darwinian evolution and rationality are not religious dogma!

And so them fact remains. To offend Carlos Celdran's fans is not equivalent to offending secular feelings but to offend the fans' feelings.  In fact, as a person of a religious tradition that upholds secularism, the whole idea of offending secularism is patently ridiculous. That is if like Pope Benedict XVI requests, that one be more logical.

Thanks to Carlos Celdran we know who Santo Papa Damaso was!

I would agree with many that the Revised Penal Code's Article 133 on "offending religious feelings" may sound archaic. It may have to be reworded. The code punishes disruption of worship services which offends the congregation  with a prison term. Carlos Celdran, history tour guide par excellance was meted out with a jail term for raising a "Damaso" sign inside the Roman Catholic cathedral of Manila during an ecumenical service on the Bible attended by Catholic priests and bishops and clergy of non Catholic churches.

Celdran makes history by being the first person to be convicted under the statute although in 1934 a suit was brought before the courts on claimed offense to religious feelings involving a local Roman Catholic congregation celebrating a para liturgical "pabasa" and  property owners who built a barbed wire fence around the chapel. The court acquitted the persons who put up the fence.

The Penal Code punishes crimes against religious worship in the same title of crimes against the fundamental laws of the State, which includes the Bill of Rights.

As the Penal Code has it, the statutes just protects the basic civil rights which includes crimes against peaceful assembly which may not be disrupted unless with court warrant.

It is a stretch of credulity to say that the Trial Court's judgement against Celdran is an affront to freedom of expression and more incredulous to even think that it involves a clerical conspiracy to charge Celdran with blasphemy under Canon Law in the guise of the Civil Law . Any college student who has taken Political Science 101 knows that freedom of expression has its limits. Freedom of Worship too has its limits and in the United States, the courts have determined limits. For example, human sacrifice in the guise of religious worship is a criminal act in any jurisdiction.

Let me demolish the blasphemy argument. The civil courts cannot charge Celdran with blasphemy. The Church can't either and the irony is that "|Damaso" was at first seen as something commemorating Pope Damasus I, a 3rd century Pope who promoted the Bible in its Latin translation by encouraging St Jerome to make this famous translation.

Quite appropriate for a service celebrating Bible translations, don't you think!

The funny thing is it took the Roman Catholic bishops at the service a bit of a time to get what Celdran meant until some Protestant clergy attending the service told them what Celdran was up to!

If we are into more hilarity, no one can beat the Filipino Freethinkers here! I need not say more. Rizal has been used for many purposes from the sublime, the Divine and the dumb!

Hey, don 't forget  Pope St Damasus!

Freedom of worship is a right that has to be protected as well as freedom of expression.

Nonetheless, the issue must be seen in terms of the State guaranteeing freedom of worship for all. The State can only determine offence to "religious feelings" and not theology which it has not the competency to do so. The penal code provision also requires the offence should be in a "place devoted to religious worship" and that the act must be "notorious". The above pic has the Mother of Perpetual Help icon and where do you place icons? Answer: in sacred spaces, places of religious worship!

The Congress has seen not it fit to put into statute a law implementing religious liberty. It just let the Supreme Court determine the limits of religious freedom. The Supremes have given wide latitude to this protection even allowing the Jehovah's Witnesses not to salute the Flag (contrary to the secular principle) which is offensive to secular feelings!

Take note that the State doesn't limit the airing of contrary views as long it does not ruin reputations or incites to people to violence. Celdran could have "fenced" the property line of the Cathedral with "Damaso" signs and he would not be in this situation at all. Of course the authorities may regulate how this can be done since the State has ensure a peaceful society.

The instinctive reaction of "progressives" is to defend freedom of expression. But all these civil rights are linked, restrict freedom of worship, you can be sure that expression will follow.

And since I defend freedom of expression like Celdran, I will defend freedom of worship and if Celdran's relativistic idea of "freedom" gets  skewered, so be it.

Spinning Andres Bonifacio the other way around

The only known photo of Bonifacio (from Philippine government website)

Starting November 30, 2012 and to climax on November 30, 2013, the Philippines will be marking the sesquicentennial of the national hero Andres Bonifacio. Bonifacio is the founder of the revolutionary society Katipunan which organized itself as a military force to prosecute the Philippine Nationalist Revolution in August 1896.

As part of the celebrations, Malacanang Palace has created the Bonifacio sesquicentennial portal wherein events and essays appraising and reappraising the role of Bonifacio in the Revolution and beyond it will be posted.

Andres Bonifacio unlike Rizal had only one known photograph and its shows a revolutionary in a suit and not in the iconic white camisa and red trousers raising a bolo and the flag in a revolutionary cry. This representation forever characterized Bonifacio as one of the peasant class. The first Bonifacio statue which became the quintessential icon was sculpted by Manuel Artigas in 1911 and now stands in front of Vinzon's Hall in UP Diliman.

Thus two representations emerged. The photo depicting the revolutionary in a suit and the imagined one with the bolo and red trousers. Which then is the real Bonifacio? The photograph according to Professor Ambeth Ocampo is the starting point for understanding the revolutionary. And like all revolutionaries, the man has many contradictions, contradictions that should break revered icons of the man. Prof Ocampo details the shifting addresses of the newly married Bonifacio, an NPA (no permanent address) and so is characteristic of the renting lower middle classes in 21st century Manila, those who can't pay the amortization of the cheapest condo without starving.

What we know of Bonifacio's early life has been caricatured. He was a "bodeguero" according to some biographies, a clerk-messenger for a British trading and brokerage firm, a "corregidor"or a collector. beforehand he sold canes and fans to augment his meagre income. The hagiography which all Filipino schoolchildren know is these odd jobs prepared him for Revolution. This is probably one of the first spin doctoring on his life. We do know he was an autodidact having read books on the French Revolution, lives of the American Presidents, Hugo's "Le Miserables", "The Wandering Jew" by Eugene Sue, law books, penology and of course, Rizal's novels. If there be a Bonifacio in the second decade of the 21st century, this revolutionary would have taught himself using Wikipedia and all its links! He could be one of the petitioners questioning the constitutional basis of the Cybercrime Law and would come up with more logical arguments than what the legal eagles can dish out in front of the Supremes!

Such national hero with only two representations can be easily spin doctored or appropriated by the ideologues. During the American occupation of the Philippines, nationalists had to come up with paeans describing the revolutionary as the "Great Plebian"  In the post 1968 era of youth militancy, militants appropriated Bonifacio as one of the lumpen masses of Marxism. (He was not even of the masses!) The Marcos dictatorship appropriated him for self reliance in defence (a gross hypocrisy since the Marcos regime was armed by Cold War America). The superficially democratic Cory Aquino regime appropriated him within the construct of People Power. (This was ridiculous since  Bonifacio right from the start had an ideology to prosecute. The revolution was to be planned, directed to eventual victory with the conscious participation of the people and victory not due to a chance failure of an Enrile coup d' etat!) The succeeding presidencies of Fidel Ramos, Erap Estrada and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appropriated Bonifacio in line with their regime's taglines "Philippines 2000 for Ramos", the seductive and proletarian but without a revolutionary ideology "Erap para sa mahirap" and the corporate state-Fascist sounding "Strong republic" of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

Ideologies and presidencies is another topic we can discuss but if one does read written works by our presidents, the closest we had was Marcos' "revolution from the centre" but that was rather contrived and it is debatable if Marcos was serious in furthering that ideology. This would require more historical research and perhaps the Imeldific penchant for edifices and shoes should provide us with the clue!

The sesquicentennial comes at a time when Mrs Aquino's son is now the Malacanang tenant and from the official spin doctoring of Bonifacio continues and now he is a man of action!

Well Superman was too and so was Batman and so was Spiderman!

Such cliches are typical of the social media world where Revolutions can be hatched and with people participating on the streets, make them victorious.

The official logos provide us with the reality of the ideological split personality of the Noynoy Aquino administration  where it panders to neoliberal capitalism (e.g. selling public hospitals) and at the same time to nationalism (e.g. rearming the navy), but with little of the ideological moorings needed to secure national sovereignty, whether it is to oppose foreign intrusion to our territory or to ensure the liberation of the people from economic want and hardship.

The official logo for print shows the Bonifacio with arms outstretched at 180 degrees as if to offer his blood to sign the Katipunan membership papers. The logo has an underemphasized Equality triangle which has Masonic connections. This is ideologically neutral and should not alarm the middle class (the traditional liberal constituency of the Aquino administration)  which years of Cold War propaganda have made averse to the political positions of the Left. This even if the Cold War is part of history!

The official online logo is more "red" meaning it is more revolutionary with the Masonic Equality triangle so much emphasized. We have to recall that the Katipunan chose red for its standard because it represented blood that needs to be shed in revolution. The official blurb spins the revolutionary symbolism and intention with the "man of action" theme but the Bonifacio here is defiant and was inspired by the Guillermo Tolentino sculpture in Monumento. The Bonifacio here is not the action type (the stereotypical "lusob mag kapatid" icon is more apt) but the ideologue at arms using both arms planning and prosecuting the Revolution.

Of course we know that the Nationalist Revolution of 1896 fell into infighting and like any Revolution ate its children. Bonifacio may have known this and perhaps this is why Tolentino made his magnum opus as such. Tolentino based his image of Bonifacio from recollections by the Katipuneros and from his Spiritualism.

Malacanang Palace asks the Filipino people "How well do we know Andres Bonifacio?"
A decent question, but this should not be as part of ideological spin doctoring. Andres Bonifacio stands for Revolution and Revolution only. He has to be remembered for Revolution and sadly for the Tragedy of the Revolution. Bonifacio is Revolution, will inspire Revolution and will symbolize the eventual triumph of the Nationalist Revolution.

A Revolution is always the overthrow of an oppressing class always with the goal of Liberation. Malacanang's ideological split personality has the record spinning in both ways. This will confuse the young and the metaphorical record will break.

Perhaps we have to live through the limitations imposed by the remaining three years of the Noynoy Aquino presidency!

Science left behind in a society where science never took off! I

Dr Jose Rizal in the 13^th chapter of his “El Filibusterismo” “The Class in Physics” describes the state of science education in late 19^th Century Spanish Philippines. The Physics classroom cum laboratory at the University of Santo Tomas, then the Philippines’ only centre of advanced learning, was equipped with the latest teaching and research lab equipment but according to Rizal was hardly ever used for the intended purpose. In fact Rizal satirically writes that only the janitor and the doorman who out of curiosity, played with the instruments, ever benefited or learned science from the investment on those pieces of lab equipment.

A closer reading of Rizal beyond the satire shows the state of science in a society that places a greater importance on superstition and a perverse kind of Catholicism.

Rizal writes a damning indictment in the last paragraph of the chapter

“He who weighs the value of a second and has ordained for His creatures as an elemental law progress and development, He, if He is just, will demand a strict accounting from those who must render it, of the millions of intelligences darkened and blinded, of human dignity trampled upon in millions of His creatures, and of the incalculable time lost and effort wasted! And if the teachings of the Gospel are based on truth, so also will these have to answer—the millions and millions who do not know how to preserve the light of their intelligences and their dignity of mind, as the master demanded an accounting from the cowardly servant for the talent that he let be taken from him.”

Science according to Rizal is necessary for society’s advancement simply because it is a search for truth. The truth shown by science is determined by experimentation and objective (scientific) realism. And that truth should liberate Filipino society from superstition, blind religion, ideology, discrimination and oppression. All of these are in the progressive agenda.

However a recent book  “Science Left Behind” (Public Affairs Books, 2012) by microbiologist Dr Alex B Berezow and Hank Campbell, editor of Science 2.0, examines the rise of anti-Science ideologies in the progressive movement. The authors argue that when the progressive movement abandoned empiricism for more relativistic ideologies, science was left aside and thus we have “scientific” controversies on animal rights, genetically modified (GM) food, rejection of vaccines stem cell research, reproductive health, alternative medicine among others.

But before we tackle this abandonment of empiricism and rationalism that according to the authors came in the wake of the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” in 1962. Silent Spring is a milestone in the history of science, technology and society when progressives abandoned rationalism and empiricism became radical environmentalists working for the realization of a natural utopia, restored in its pristine form. This is a myth, a construct similar to that what Freethinkers claim for what Roman Catholic Church believes is the truth about human societies. But I shall come to that later.

The anti-science ideas held by postmodern progressives can be summarized in four points according to Berezow and Campbell

1.     Everything natural is good

2.     Everything unnatural is bad

3.     Unchecked science and progress will destroy us

4.     Science is only relative anyway

This idea of naturalness is rooted in postmodern relativism in which science is just one idea among others that none of them should have none of the preeminence it should have in discourse. This is a radical departure from the position held by Dr Rizal who maintained the objective validity of scientific reasoning (scientific realism) and that without it society will fail to advance.

This book is aimed at an American readership and specifically deals with science and politics in the United States. However it may be applicable to the debates on science, environment and population in the Philippines. Filipino progressives have largely borrowed progressive agendas from the West mainly from the United States and are now in the process of articulating this to varying degrees of success in the Filipino context. Perhaps the articulation of progressive ideas is most successful in the issue of climate change and resource use management that many Filipinos have now a concept of how to mitigate the impact of climate change or the negative effects of using plastic bags. Local governments nationwide have implemented no plastic bags ordinances. Do these policies translated to law have scientific basis?

It is a buzzword among the Filipino science community that public policy should be “science based”. While this sound like a sexy mantra and may get money from the government science agencies, the fact remains that public policy cannot be 100% based on science alone. When science is made into public policy, it is translated and with it the ideology or the political expediency of the moment gets mixed in. Science tests hypotheses with rigor and lets the data speak for itself. Politics on the other hand thrives on subjective truth. Thus there is a need to insulate science from ideology driven politicians, ministers of religion, Freethinkers, activists and advocates. Science should be free to speak for itself and science policy should be driven by data above anything else.

What has happened in late 20^th century America and has seen its full flowering under the Obama presidency is that postmodern progressives have successively dominated the public discourse on science with their ideologically driven relativistic positions. This is also the case in the Philippines when progressives have hijacked the discourse on two major issues that have major consequences for national development, mining and population management.

I will focus on these two issues since they are national in scope and unlike animal rights or stem cell research or even genetically modified food which are issues for certain demographic sectors but not the whole nation.

The idea of a university and the Varsitarian

John Henry Cardinal Newman

The Catholic Church is probably the only religion which raises reason together with faith as a standard for thinking and with it, life. And just for that as a way to praising the Divine, she invented the university, made sure this flourished to the present day, nurtured the arts and gave birth to science, the social sciences and modern mathematics.

The Church has always had a space for thinkers and that space sometimes was the Papal throne or at least the seat of the local diocese. Two of the recent popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are major contributors to philosophy and theology and in John Paul II, even environmental ethics. Benedict is known to follow developments in science. Traditionally, the Catholic universities are the spaces for thinking with or even against the Church.

Ah yes! The University, the alma mater studiorum as the University in Bologna, the world's oldest in existence has for its motto. The University is semper liberi by its very nature and foundation. This is the Catholic understanding of what a university should be. The famous convert from the Church of England, John Henry Newman wrote probably THE SEMINAL work on what a university, Catholic or even a secular one ought to be.

And with the Catholic understanding of what the University is what then do we make of the recent controversial editorial of the student blurb Varsitarian  of the Royal and Pontifical University of Santo Tomas?

If the student editors represent what the University of Santo Tomas teaches, then it represents the worst kind of anti intellectualism that a Catholic university can ever produce. As John Henry Cardinal Newman, a beatus of the Church, worthy of veneration by universities wrote

A Catholic university is

"is a place where inquiry is pushed forward, and discoveries verified and perfected, and rashness rendered innocuous, and error exposed, by the collision of mind with mind, and knowledge with knowledge. It is the place where the professor becomes eloquent, and is a missionary and a preacher, displaying his science in its most complete and most winning form, pouring it forth with the zeal of enthusiasm, and lighting up his own love of it in the breasts of his hearers. It is the place where the catechist makes good his ground as he goes, treading in the truth day by day into the ready memory, and wedging and tightening it into the expanding reason. "

Theological error cannot be countered by a fundamentalist exposition coupled with a lame charge of intellectual pretension. And can inquiry be ever an interloper? It is in the land of the non-thinking it will be and it should be. Bad theology can only be countered by good theology, as bad science becomes of historical interest only with good science. What the Varsitarian did was to contract not expand reason in the most venerable of Philippine universities at the cost of damaging Catholic credibility. The UST is so highly regarded that at her foundation in 1908, the secular University of the Philippines paid her homage.

As Cardinal Newman and another beatus, John Paul II have emphasized, a university is not a seminary. It does not exist for solely for evangelization. Newman wrote

"it is a place of teaching universal knowledge. This implies that its object is, on the one hand, intellectual, not moral; and, on the other, that it is the diffusion and extension of knowledge rather than the advancement. If its object were scientific and philosophical discovery, I do not see why a University should have students; if religious training, I do not see how it can be the seat of literature and science."

Newman also writes that the university can exist without the church (as secular universities do) but it needs the Church to maintain its integrity, that is ensuring that there is liberty to search what is true and knowing that one is at the fount of truth.  This principle underlies John Paul II's Ex Corde Ecclesiae which builds on Newman's ideas.

The only way a Catholic university serves Catholic teaching by diffusing knowledge, expanding a student's knowledge lest he/she does not become obstinate in his/her views and have a clearer view of the truth. Newman believed that obstinacy in any subject be this in science, philosophy or theology is a sign of narrowness of a person's knowledge that will make him prone to the obstinacy of the bigot, without the apologies. This is the evangelical nature of a university, to teach and only to teach that the mind may discern the truth.

And so the main thesis of the Varsitarian in defending the RH Bill, which is an appeal to authority, UST, CBCP and the Magisterium, is flawed and thus leading to an uncharitable, ad hominem  and baseless charge at the faculties of two Catholic universities. This is not bravely defending the Catholic faith but a foolish attempt at doing so. Catholic faith is best defended with reason and charity, as Newman did in his Apologia.

The Reverend Fathers and lay professors of the Pontifical University still have the chance to turn this around not be censuring its student journalists but by teaching them more.  And I believe they will do it for the UST over the centuries, has defended its liberties in the search for truth.