Prudence and Madness

It’s interesting to note how opinions of the Filipino people on issues concerning the nation vary and how they would choose to express it. Like what I’ve always said, the manner by which a person express his anger and other emotions speak very much about his character.

Yesterday around lunch time, Senator Antonio Trillanes, who is on trial for their shortlived mutiny in Oakwood Hotel in 2003, and Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim, who was the negotiator during the height of the Oakwood Mutiny and who is also facing court martial proceedings in connection with the uprising that happened February 24 last year, walked out from a hearing at Makati Regional Trial Court. Then, they marched out of the streets of Makati, with 50 other men, including armed men in military uniform wearing the Magdalo insignia, Former Vice President Teofisto Guingona Jr, a staunch critic of President Arroyo, and Argee Guevarra, lawyer for the Laban ng Masa group. Novaliches Bishop Antonio Tobias, Infanta Bishop Emeritus Julio Labayen as well as Fr. Robert Reyes were also there. And the destination? The Manila Peninsula Hotel, where all the drama will unfold.

At that time, I’ve just turned off the TV because I got bored watching the Republican/Youtube Debate on CNN and decided to finally turn my attention on my review notes when I received a Twitter SMS Update:

Okay, I know that’s a web twit. But you get the idea…

That’s a twit from Arbet.

I immediately went back to the TV to turn it on to ANC. And, of course, I’ve got to get online too to catch up with the updates. From then on, I spend the whole afternoon switching from reading and typing twits and IM messages online to watching TV to reading my review notes (not necessarily in that particular order, but usually reviewing the notes came in last, haha).

And as expected, most bloggers began the deluge of twits:

That screen capture of the twittersphere is basically a summary of how bloggers felt about what happened in the Manila Peninsula Makati yesterday. However, this is not to simplify emotions and opinions. There’s a lot of discussions regarding it, even up to now, if you read the twitter posts.

Is it a coup, mutiny, or…a situation?

An article in the Inquirer, appropriately entitled “Is it a coup, mutiny, putsch, situation, or what?“, listed several terms used to describe actions taken against a government or an authority:

• Coup d’état or simply coup: A sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force. The term is French and literally means “stroke concerning the state” (coup, hit, and état, state).
• Putsch: A plotted revolt or attempt to overthrow a government especially one that depends upon suddenness and speed. The Swiss German word literally means violent blow, clash or shock. It was introduced in the sense of a “coup” to refer to Swiss popular uprisings in the 1830s, especially the Zurich revolt of September 1839.
• Mutiny: Concerted disobedience or seditious action by persons in military or naval service, or by sailors on commercial vessels. Mutiny may range from a combined refusal to obey orders to active revolt or going over to the enemy on the part of two or more persons. In the Armed Forces it is considered one of the gravest crimes against military law.
• Rebellion: Open, organized, and armed resistance to one’s government or ruler. In the most general sense, a refusal to accept authority and may include a range of action and behaviors from civil disobedience to a violent organized attempt to destroy established authority. Those who participate in rebellions are known as “rebels.”

Source: Inquirer article, “Is it a coup, mutiny, putsch, situation, or what?“

Other terms that can be used are:

• Rebellion implies an open formidable resistance that is often unsuccessful <open rebellion against the officers>
• Revolution applies to a successful rebellion resulting in a major change (as in government) <a political revolution that toppled the monarchy>.
• Uprising implies a brief, limited, and often immediately ineffective rebellion <quickly put down the uprising>.
• Revolt and Insurrection imply an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds <a revolt by the Young Turks that surprised party leaders> <an insurrection of oppressed laborers>.

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye, however, during a press conference yesterday, found it rather more appropriate to call what’s happening in Manila Peninsula as a “situation”.

At first, I found it funny it funny that he refused to name it either as a coup or mutiny or whatever is the right term for it, which brought back to mind something in the Harry Potter books about refusing to name a thing that someone fears because they believe that having a name for it renders it more powerful and fearsome (of which, of course, Harry Potter showed that he would rather fear what is known to him, by giving a name to it, than to fear an unknown). But after a while, I think I understood. At press time, the government still was in the progress of knowing the extent of what’s happening then in Manila Peninsula.

But for now, I think it’s all right if we call it a rebellion…a failed rebellion, that is. It’s interesting to note that there’s only a thin line separating rebellion and revolution and that thin line is success that results into a major change.

Some reasons why the rebellion failed

One of the reasons, perhaps, why the Manila Peninsula Rebellion failed is that Trillanes did not have the support of most of the military. Up to now, I do not understand why they’ve decided to push with another attempt of toppling the Arroyo Administration yesterday, except for that fact that they probably wanted to make a statement by doing it on a day near Bonifacio day (For those who do not know, Bonifacio day is in honor of Andres Bonifacio, founder and leader of the Katipunan). Although some civilians were said to have disclosed that there were two groups of military men that are sympathetic to Trillanes’ cause and were about to support him during the rebellion, I don’t think it’s enough for him to be able to pull off the rebellion successfully. I can’t help but compare this to the 1986 People Power Revolution (and I think, the only People Power Revolution that we should recognize) because this is the important event in the Philippine history that most rebellions are trying to replicate these days. But most of these rebellions fail because they do not have adequate support of the military. And this does not mean only military men, but there should be defection from the government by key military officers.

Another reason is that the Trillanes’ cause did not appear to have that much support from the masses. Even if there were repeated calls for support from Trillanes and his group as they’re shown on TV while marching down the streets of Makati and that the stand-off took hours before it ended, people did not flock to Manila Peninsula to show their support for Trillanes. They even had a website! There were reports, though, of 3 jeepneys driving to Makati with passengers supposedly paid P200 each to give “support” to the Trillanes’ cause.

Again, this pales in comparison to the 1986 EDSA Revolution. People during that time need not be told what to do. When the military declared their defection from the government and even if the radio stations controlled by the Marcos government cut off broadcasts, still the people went to EDSA and their numbers swelled to thousands. The leaders of the 1986 EDSA Revolution need not to buy off people just so to get those numbers.

The lack of support from the people also was reflected, I think, from the twitter posts I’ve read yesterday. Most have thought of this recent event as a nuisance. Some even wished that Trillanes should just die so to end it all. Others have already gotten tired of the repetitive failures of this kind of movement. Some wanted the Trillanes cause to be a success. But the majority of the emotions, I think, based on the twitter posts I’ve read reflects a disapproval of what Trillanes did.

Post-Rebellion

The stand-off ended last night at around past 6 pm. Trillanes and his group were arrested but it was also said that, overall, there were about 101 people arrested. With the arrests, the media complained that their journalists who covered the rebellion were manhandled by PNP. Also, a little bit of commotion in the online community ensued when it was announced that there would be a curfew (from 12:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., November 30, 2007). The PNP chief was quick to defend that the curfew did not mean that it’s the start of Martial Law. The Catholic bishop, Bishop Labayen, protested his arrest but was then eventually turned over to CBCP custody and will just voluntarily give his statements to the police as necessary. The manhunt is on for Marine Captain Nicanor Faeldon and 2 other rebel soldiers. Meanwhile, Manila Peninsula Hotel will be closed until the management is able to address the damages that the building incurred. It will also pick up all charges from the hotels where its guests were transferred to up to and including 12 noon on Friday, 30 November. Now, the PNP has lowered its alert status to normal.

Personal thoughts

My personal thoughts on this is that, though Trillanes has a noble intention in mind in calling for a rebellion, still, the method by which he wanted to do this is not acceptable. Yes, I could easily think of many reasons why we should doubt the ability of this government to lead the country: the unrelenting scandals, reports of corruption, questionable decisions in national issues and policies, and allegations that Malacañang bribed some congressmen to kill impeachment complaints that had been filed year after year, and the reports of extrajudicial killings of journalists and activists. But to march down to a private hotel and break in through the glass doors by force so that they could set up a command station for a rebellion is not the right thing to do, whichever angle you look at it. Manila Peninsula Hotel is clearly a private building owned by private individuals and they don’t have the right to just gate-crash and setup themselves there nice and comfortable “in the service of the masses”.

As I’ve said in twitter, why does he have a penchant for hotels (Remember the Oakwood Mutiny)? If this group says they work for the masses, then why don’t they go to the slums and call the people to join them in their protest? Go to Monumento and have a rally! Or go to Mendiola! And then again, what I’ve noticed in some of the more violent rallies is the predilection of some protesters to deface or destroy public properties because they’re in an “emotional high”, that they feel it their right to express their anger in violence, whether towards people or properties because they’re protesting as part of the common people and for the common people. But this shouldn’t be so. Even what they’re fighting for is the common good, they still have to respect individual and property rights. And so should have Senator Trillanes.

I feel pity for the owner of Manila Peninsula and for the couple who’s supposed to have a wedding reception there yesterday afternoon. Hopefully, the government and most especially Trillanes and his company, will pay for the damages done to the building and for the expenses incurred by the couple for having their supposed wedding reception disrupted.

As for the media being manhandled by the police, I supposed that the multitudes of cameras stationed in Manila Peninsula could have captured that. But no, I haven’t seen any of it. But neither do I approve of throwing in tear gas cans inside the building while there are civilians, be it media practitioners who’re supposedly willing to stay inside because that’s where the scoop is. I’m not an expert in military operations, but I think it’s rational that the military can create smoke-screens without the use of tear gas that can irritate the mucous membranes and the respiratory tract. Smoke-bombs can be used for that. But clearly, creating a smokescreen isn’t the only purpose for throwing in the tear gas cans. The military wanted to temporarily disable ALL people who’re inside the building. Reporters may have “asked” for it by staying, but still it should always be kept in mind that they’re still civilians.

I’m tired of being accused as a person who do not do anything to make changes for the good of the country or as someone who hides from reality and would rather live in a make-believe world. I live in this reality like everybody else. Does it mean that just because I do not share the belief that we need this rebellion to change our situation today I do not live in the real world? Does it mean that just because I do not approve of committing illegal actions for the sake of “the greater good” I do not want changes in this country? Does immersing myself in making my life better and being the best human being that I can be, rather than spending time blaming and accusing the government as responsible for my problems and the problems this country have, mean that I am apathetic to the sad plight of others? Does having my own opinion in disagreement with that of the majority necessarily mean that my reasoning is flawed?

As I’ve always said, I’ll never apologize nor feel guilty for thinking of myself, if it meant that I shall focus on working hard to be a good provider and to be a good citizen. I realize that the changes need not only be in the government but, more importantly, the changes I make in myself is what I can contribute to make this country a better place. I just hope more people will realize that they should stop blaming other people for their problems and see that changes should begin in one’s self. Maybe they’ll be surprised of the pleasant results that they’ll get.

Yes, we all want changes that will make this country a better place to live in. But changes should be made the right way.