|
LEGAL researcher Ryan Balisacan from UP Institute of Human Rights
makes a powerful argument for the application of transitional
justice. Transitional justice is predicated on the experiential
observation that societies, which emerge from a period of repressive
rule or systematic human rights abuse, must necessarily undergo a
catharsis; a process of revisiting the past, making an inventory of
injuries sustained, assuaging them, and moving forward with
fortified commitments and assurances against recidivism or
reiteration of mistakes during such specified historical period.
Unless such society experiences this mandatory catharsis, there are,
and can be, no quantum leaps from a quagmire of oppression,
insatiable greed and crippling corruption to a reformed utopia,
which a truly good government can be.
When the Philippines emerged from the
authoritarian rule of Marcos, propelled by vibrant expectations
arising from an unparalleled peaceful people power revolution, it
was hardly thought that several administrations after, there could
be a replication of the strong, corrupt, military-dependent regime,
which Marcos nurtured for twenty years of martial rule. The Cory
administration had no actual confrontation with repressive military
rulers except for a nominal reversal of the Aquino-Galman decision
to prove that the ruling administration would hold military
assassins of the presidential spouse fully accountable.
Subsequently, we even elected a Marcos general, under whose reign
the military had no qualms in displaying political arrogance.
Instead of genuine reconciliation with armed insurgencies, the Ramos
regime conducted nominal peace negotiations while institutionalizing
military rule over civilian agencies. Retired military and police
generals were appointed to sensitive traditionally civilian
positions despite their questionable integrity and proven
incompetence, which has been the practice ever since.
Lulled by the trappings, and seeming
infiniteness, of power, our leaders after Marcos may not have
considered that their conduct as presidents would someday be
scrutinized under the glaring light of international legal
standards. So is it that the incumbent leadership now stands on the
same precipice that the former dictator once stood, besieged by the
pressure of having to right the wrongs committed within the
remaining period of its existence. But how? It has dipped its hand
into further institutionalizing corruption in civilian agencies; in
empowerment of military and police generals to perpetuate itself in
power; in usurping legislative and judicial authority by corrupting
individuals exercising such lofty prerogatives of maintaining and
guaranteeing democratic balance; and in even conducting spiritual
charades with dissolute religious leaders—all in the great
tradition and replication of the unlamented Marcos dictatorship.
Should the incumbent administration desire to
recover some prestige and its lost integrity within the
international community, then mechanisms for transitional justice
are open for its use and enforcement. In appointing independent,
prominent individuals to head government agencies tasked to check
abuse, especially the Ombudsman and Commission on Human Rights
tagged as the “weakest links” in political governance, the
administration could regain some political composure. In creating
truth commissions and criminal tribunals tasked to prosecute
perpetrators rather than whistleblowers, the administration could
still reverse its further submergence into notoriety. In replacing
its absurdly loquacious justice secretary, the administration could
certainly regain some standing in the international legal community.
As Balisacan explains, transitional justice performs various
functions: first, a validative function—in memorializing and
acknowledging wrongdoings committed and identifying its
perpetrators, vindication of rights violated becomes possible;
second, a corrective function—it also tends to undo
socio-political anomalies from past crisis and lays the groundwork
for social reconciliation of excluded or divided segments of
society; third, an ameliorative function—providing reparations to
victims in form and quantum proportionate to injuries suffered
results in providing impetus for renewal and closure; and fourth, a
punitive-exemplary function—meting out proper punishments to
wrongdoers tends to deter future commission of similar wrongful
acts.
There is some power in a people’s collective
recollection in reference to a national wrongdoing, which an
American president calls “vigilance of memory.” With memories of
past cruelty, notoriety, and heinousness, there is a need for action
on those painful memories. Without those memories, past crimes go
unpunished and unheeded, continuously repeating itself with impunity
in the unfinished history of our people. People power revolutions
may have lost their effectiveness in failing to provide expected
quantum leaps into a Filipino utopia. Transitional justice may still
be the next best strategy in improving society. If our incumbent
president fails to take these appropriate strategies in dealing with
crimes of corruption and human rights abuses now, then
administrations thereafter, which muster enough moral courage, may
just decide to subscribe to tenets of transitional justice, holding
past regimes accountable for their misdeeds. There will certainly be
no quantum leaps into a more humane and compassionate society but
there can certainly be transitional actions to bring criminal
perpetrators, especially national leaders, to the bars of historical
justice.
ericfmallonga@yahoo.com
|
