I thought our blog entry would not merit the attention of anyone in the class but to my surprise, not only was there a comment, but what a comment it was:
Are you serious?If the government is given the go signal to suppress the freedom of expression of communists, what is the guarantee that it won't do this with ordinary citizens. or are you proposing a complete control/monitoring/black out of anti-government ideas like what China is doing?
It made my day because I realized the significance of my proposal, that it was not merely a submission to meet a course deadline, but an advocacy which impacts on our lives as UP students of law (yabang!) and freedom-loving citizens.
The comment, while quite receptive to the idea, expresses doubts that such measure would not be across the board, that ordinary citizens would not be lumped in the same classification as the clear objects of the measure – the members of the NPA. In this regard I could not agree more. Today our Congress is said to be composed of three branches: the Lower House, the Senate and the Bicameral Committee. Our justice system is not perfect, especially with the alleged propensity of some lawyers to analyze complex questions of fact and law using their profound knowledge of the judge.
Simply put, we will ensure that sufficient guarantees will be put in place so that our legislators will not cut corners in the drafting of the law. Of course the standard would be proof beyond reasonable doubt. Then perhaps we can mobilize to educate the public about the ABC’s of the law. And more…
Definitely, the proposal would not even be remotely similar to a complete control/monitoring/black out of anti-government ideas like what China is doing. The proposal made it very clear that the prohibition on the possession and use of high tech gadgets would be applied against the members of the NPA who are waging an arms struggle against the government, nothing more, nothing less. It would not cover political activists of any denomination. It will strictly be a tool to complement the present military operations against the NPAs who are using the latest IT solutions to enhance their combat power. Equally important is its being an expression of support to our soldiers who continue to offer their lives to protect the security and welfare of the Filipino people.
And yes, I’m serious with my proposal and I am gratified by the comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
with all due respect, the mere idea of monitoring who can use and who cane own information gadget sends chills down my spine. i do acknowledge the problem of insurgency and the dangers it poses, but to go and swing to the very farthest end of the scale is all too sweeping.
imagine every cop in every city searching every citizen's bags and homes for communication gadgets simply on the suspicion that he/she may be a member of the new people's army. that is what the proposal suggests. this is so because members of the NPA do not wear shirts that say "i am NPA-- and damn proud of it" . we do n ot who is a member. and we won't know unless we are with them in the movement.
assuming arguendo that we could identify card-carryig members of the NPA, the measure proposed would still grate on a democracy-loving citizen's ears because it proposes to punish a person for simply owning or using an otherwise legitimate gadget, whether he/she uses it for good or crime. the distinction is lost between lawful and unlawful activites. we did strike down the anti-subversion law for a reason.
admitted, we do need to address the insurgency problem, but maybe we should consider the effects and mplications of this porposal.... not that it doesn't merit an A for a wickedly good use of imagination :)
I'm not really big on the whole idea of trust in the government to do what is right. And neither am I big on the idea of granting said government more expansive authority to intrude (in my view unnecessarily) into the private space of ordinary citizens.
Even the existence of police checkpoints I find intolerable at times. I've experienced being forced to stop at such a checkpoint, at around 2 am, which checkpoint was set up at an area which was not well-lit, and where there were no other people around. At times like that, I really do feel the awesome power at the disposal of the government, and it is at times like that that I am thankful that certain checks have been placed on the Executive, regarding what it can and cannot legally do.
So I guess you know where I stand on this proposal. I believe that most police officers are honest, decent human beings, but notwithstanding such belief, I'd much rather not be facing just such an officer, alone, on a dark street, watching while he goes through my vehicle and things, looking for proof as to whether or not I am involved with some form of armed insurgency.
Post a Comment