As ABS-CBN shuts down, let’s look for someone to blame. Duterte should be the number one target since he hates the network. He should command the shutdown to stop, demanding the NTC to withdraw the cease and desist order.
If so, then aren’t we becoming the dictator we loathed Duterte to be? No, not if it’s for the greater good? What’s so good about that? The people who keep on mentioning the law want to point out that if we excuse this ONE time, even just this one time, people won’t be contented with that. We would allow more freedom for the people, whatever that means, to do and say whatever we feel at the moment. We can easily disregard all those we do not agree with. If we excuse the broadcasting station now, it would also be used as a reference or an example to get what a particular group would want in the future. The president says he cannot interfere with the cease and desist order, probably because he isn’t above the law. But this time, just this one time, we want him to be beyond the legislation. Although he is known for behaving unprecedentedly as president, he said his thanks for ABS-CBN’s effort to help with COVID-19.
His spokesperson said, “If he (Duterte) could, he probably would have done something for the ABS-CBN franchise, but the president is a lawyer. And the law might be harsh as they said earlier, but that is the law.” Then he continued, “But there is a remedy, as I heard (from) Congressman Salceda, the constitution really said that the only body that can grant the franchise is Congress. And Congress right now is in session. So, the remedy really is (to) ask Congress for that franchise. Perhaps they’ve had more than enough time to study the matter. And if they’re worried that the president would not want them to issue a franchise, I’m here to tell you he really is neutral.”
Do so under the law – bring back the TV station using the man-made laws we created ourselves. It seems easy. Cory Aquino won through a snap election in 1986, creating the 1986 Constitutional Commission that drafted the now 1987 Freedom Constitution. The draft allowed Cory to be president, although she was inexperienced and with no background at all with the government. Previously, the 1973 constitution did not allow anyone without prior knowledge of the law to sit at the highest position in the country. So, should we also change the current constitution for ABS-CBN’s sake?
What happens to children when we ask them a question of why?
They stay silent for a while. If we’re lucky, children may look at us in the eyes, as if scheming who to blame or they may avoid it as if questioning the why’s. Why are they getting scolded; why is it happening to them; why is it them, and among other things. We are all children bickering with one another. Headlines scream whys instead of what, so we become too presumptuous and avoidant of what is. How about asking what happened instead of why it happened first? It’s a more straightforward question to answer. What’s happening instead of why it’s happening. And what happens next instead of why it’s going to happen. For now, the simplest or maybe even the fastest way to move forward is looking at what is happening then coming up with solutions. Why things happened is not the more rational thing to ask now. Since everything is leaking, we shouldn’t want to spill more to cause misunderstandings, making more holes in the already deteriorating public eye.
Doctor Mark Hyman said in a podcast, “How we treat the human race is a Name it-Blame it-Tame it Game.” Wow, aren’t we functional?
Still, if we really want someone to blame, who should be held responsible? The president is first-in-line, of course, since he is the punisher. Remembering the recent shooting of an ex-soldier by police on patrol, the same pattern of blame emerged. Duterte told the policemen to “shoot them dead”? Even without that command, the police officer would have shot the ex-soldier since he didn’t comply. What was the order? Stand down. Stand down. Stand down. Stand down. How many times was it repeated? He was mentally ill, so he couldn’t comprehend it? All the more reason he should have stayed at home. All the more reason that his family should have taken better care of him and not leave him alone. What was his alleged illness? Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and schizophrenia.
Take note. He was alone with no guardian with him when he was mentally ill. If we’re looking for someone to blame, then shouldn’t it be the negligent family members? Knowing that their family member has an illness, yet they still let him roam free, does that make sense? If it was detrimental to the point of blaming the disease for his behavior, why was he even out?
Taking the law into consideration, the health sector follows its own rules and regulations. Industries move with dependence on our written laws regardless of whether they have close connections with the government or not. The health professional in charge of the ex-soldier will most likely have talked with him and his family regarding the indications of his conditions. Knowing the do’s and don’ts for the patient is expected to already be explained together with his diagnosis. Laws differ from place to place, so our understanding of it may vary. However, every institution should operate while following these rules. Some entities may seem to adhere to specific standards while engaging in illegal activities. Still, they do so under a code that is publicly acceptable while seeking public empathy.
Innocents are put to jail in dramas because of not having enough evidence, so the jury cannot be swayed enough to believe their innocence. What happens to the police shooter? What if it was the mentally ill who shot the police to his death? Would people be as understanding because of his mental illness? Or will the audience tell him to stop using mental illness as an excuse since he could venture alone outside freely?
The police instinctively shoot like they were trained at the camp, especially if they have no knowledge of who the person in front of them is. If one showed no signs of threat, aggression, and so forth, maybe he could’ve lived another day. But, the ex-soldier was just bluffing. Is that enough reason to justify threatening the police that he had a gun? Even as a joke? Is living a joke then? Let’s say the police didn’t shoot, and the ex-soldier didn’t have a gun. What happens next? Can we imagine anything after that? One, the ex-soldier will make a run for it, causing a chase. Two, both parties will get into an agreement even though the ex-soldier shows no signs of heeding. Three, what do you think would make more sense?
Going back to the ABS-CBN issue, should Duterte be held responsible? In his reign, Aquino was also blamed for the #maguindanaomassacre. Translating it to Duterte’s era, it’s #oustduterte and #notoabscbnshutdown. What about the broadcasting station itself? Why shouldn’t it be held responsible for its employees’ welfare and its operations? “With great power comes great responsibility,” and we hear that the opposite is also true. “With great responsibility comes great power.” As much as the government is responsible for handling press freedom, it’s also the responsibility of the station to admit its actions. The issue with regards to the frequency and channels should be explained by certified individuals since the press has the responsibility to report factually. People might be swayed with emotional words because not everyone knows what the issues are with frequencies and channels, so better let those who know to explain well. Being jobless should also not be an issue since the station should be prepared to pay their employees for causing such inconveniences with their decisions. If Congress held on the franchise renewal for a long time, there must be something wrong on either side that they might not be getting right. Both parties cannot come into an agreement because of some things, and those things may or may not be subject to change.
We still have a virus to fight. So, we should choose our battles wisely to win the war.
I don’t really know much about the law. I’m only speaking of what I can comprehend for now, because everything is not what it seems. Wise people in movies tend to say those lines. I’m not claiming I am; I’m saying we should be. Let’s strive to be. Become it. What? Above the law. Should we?
Like. Share. Comment.
Thank you.
- ABOVE THE LAW (May 6, 2020) - May 20, 2020
- Let’s Not Grow Old Together (January 20, 2020) - April 22, 2020
