Those who criticized the mayor panicked because she showed she was ready to burn bridges and betray her social class in defense of her constituency. Mayor Inday did not grab the law into her own hands — she slammed it for its anti-people character.
By Angela Trinidad
Davaotoday.com
DAVAO CITY, Philippines — Everything about the unfortunate incident in Soliman, Agdao, was predictable, although the punching incident was exceptionally one for the books.
In the eyes of the law, it is the landowner who was dispossessed and denied of a property right. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the judicial system to declare a status quo ante bellum (the way things were before) and decree the eviction of the urban poor. Whether or not stealth, trickery and fraud characterized the titling and registration of the land is of no moment, what matters only is evidence — that which the moneyed always have and will try to have no matter what.
Surely, the urban poor would never give up their homes willingly and without a fight especially when they know that former President Magsaysay was lying when he said “those who have less in life should have more in law” and the only hand that the poor could rely on is theirs. For them, it is not a matter of comfort and safety. It is an issue of human rights. And while the law was supposed to equalize and provide substantial protection to those who have less in life, it has once again proven to be a potent tool for aggression. At the risk of being uprooted, people had to defend themselves no matter what.
That functionalism has been embraced by the legal system to the core is compounding the urban poor’s insecurity and strengthening their resolve to close ranks and fight hard. When they created that human chain and resisted demolition forces with whatever available resources on the ground, they were not putting the law into their hands — they were shaking it off, collectively. For how can they take advantage of the law that was crafted to disadvantage them in the first place?
With two diametrically opposing interests and a relationship that is inherently antagonistic, conflict was inevitable and violence was certain to erupt. Because the implementers of the eviction order exploited hapless youths, people tried to even the score with the only defense they know: themselves. It was not only necessary — it was justified. Just like protest actions and people’s assemblies are sanctioned by the Bill of Rights and in the same way that a full-blown revolution is justified under our preamble (according to my former professor, who is now regional state prosecutor in Southern Mindanao.)
Similarly, the position taken by each sector was expected. No, it was not hasty. It was pre-disposed.
So when professionals ( lawyers, included), some technocrats, most people in government and journalists from outside of Davao City were crying foul over the incident calling Mayor Sara Duterte different names and labeling her act as barbaric, unbecoming and uncouth, they were either showing an inclination toward or reflecting their class.
These are the people who sit idly on almost every public issue and quickly whine of protest-engendered traffic congestion. Except when their individual interests are threatened, they would rather leave the fighting to those who are already accustomed to it. For them, it is an issue of comfort and decorum and to steer the boat to an unpopular direction is not in style.
Mayor Sara Duterte with her constituents. (File foto)
These are the coffee-table warmers who criticize government and condemn violence but do nothing to challenge it and eliminate it. They quickly lambasted a mayor for punching one sheriff, but kept mum on the brutality that characterized the demolition. They demanded an investigation into Mayor Inday’s reaction to the violence in Soliman but said nothing about other city mayors’ inaction on the violent demolitions that are happening in urban poor communities all over the country.
Pseudo-human rights advocates who reconfigured human rights violations into mere pecuniary damage, consequently bidding out the souls of political detainees and martyrs during the Marcos era — they say the punching was inhuman, while affirming the killing of Filipinos by Filipinos as just consequential?
They are the learned in the law whose intellectual arrogance is clearly gender-biased. Apparently while it takes almost a decade to decide on whether a philandering counsel is guilty of gross misconduct, a few hours is enough to tag a punching by a lady lawyer as conduct unbecoming.
They who insist that as an officer of the court, Mayor Inday should have followed the law no matter how harsh , but what about the sheriff who did not follow the law on demolition to the letter when he tried to implement an order despite the weather condition and without the presence of government officials?
They are the landed and the owners of capital, some of them occupying high government/political positions, who called the mayor’s style of leadership a thuggery but whose political histories smell of blood debts. One’s participation in a popular uprising does not effectively exonerate one for engineering martial law that claimed thousands of innocent people, including women and youths.
They denounced the punching as an act of violence but rely on the power of the guns, goons and gold to win Philippine elections.
Historically, they are the middle and ruling class from whom Jose Rizal owes his status and popularity. They lauded Rizal’s conspiratorial secessionist proposal but downplayed Andres Bonifacio’s brand of nationalism. They disapproved of Bonifacio’s mode of struggle but wasted no time in collaborating with the landed and the moneyed in seizing political power from the masses whose hands were bloodied in fighting colonial Spain.
Thereafter, they made friends with and collaborated with the Americans and Japanese in drafting laws and formulating legal principles to ensure that their interests are protected and upheld. They made sure that through the legal system, their capital and resources are maintained if not multiplied. And they did it effectively and for centuries.
Such a vacillating, dangerous breed, indeed. They take on issues according to what hurts them the most.
When they castigated the mayor’s act, they were not actually angry. They were afraid that it would constitute a precedence making it doubly difficult for them to recover their properties or their friends’ when their time comes.
They were frustrated because the mayor threw punches not only at the sheriff but at the legal system. And by throwing right-hook punches at the legal system, Mayor Inday was punching their own.
They panicked because the mayor showed she was ready to burn bridges and betray her social class in defense of her constituency. Mayor Inday did not grab the law into her own hands — she slammed it for its anti-people character.
On the other, the urban poor families and the rest of the marginalized sectors cheered not because Mayor Inday saved the day. They cheered because they know that the mayor understood the cause they are fighting for and acknowledged its justness.
While they do not entertain the illusion that the mayor will join them in each and every fight, they take comfort in the fact that she will protect them from any and every unreasonable act.
Ultimately, the line has been drawn. When the modern day ilustrados and hacienderos called for Mayor Inday’s prosecution, it was not a call for order — it was an act of self-preservation. Understandably, they were representing their class. And when the mayor did what she thought was best, she was repudiating hers.
In medical lingo, it is called genetic predisposition. In this case, it is called class bias. (davaotoday.com)
angging librado, mayor sara duterte, Poverty
