This story
was taken from Bulatlat, the Philippines's alternative weekly
newsmagazine (www.bulatlat.com, www.bulatlat.net, www.bulatlat.org).
Vol. V, No. 10, April 17-23, 2005
State
Violence
Is state violence the mindset
among security forces that think (according to the journalist Arlyn de la Cruz)
in terms of “On whose side are you? Are you with us or are you with the enemy?”
By Elmer A. Ordoñez Sifting through my files
recently I came across a thin volume entitled State Violence (1987),
published by the Philippine Social Science Council, and edited by Ponciano
Bennagan of the state university. As the cliché goes, reading
State Violence filled me with a sense of déjà vu—what with all the
reports coming in about the assassination of party-list and mass organization
leaders/members and the killing of church and the media people. State Violence
includes papers by four UP social scientists (Bennagen, Carolina Hernandez,
Rosario Cortes, Armando Malay Jr.), Jose W. Diokno, and Jose Maria Sison—all
read at a seminar-workshop in May 1986, a few months after the toppling of the
Marcos dictatorship and the assumption of a “revolutionary government” headed by
Corazon Aquino. But the volume itself came
out in 1987 in the wake of new human rights violations such as the assassination
of Rolando Olalia, Lupao and Mendiola massacres of peasants (following which
Diokno resigned as commissioner of human rights), and the breakdown of peace
talks between the government and the National Democratic Front. Indeed, an
auspicious time. And when reckoning came, the record of human-rights violations
by the state-coercive apparatus under President Aquino appeared to have exceeded
that of the Marcos period. Since then we have seen no
let-up of human-rights violations by the state—a situation that has, in fact,
worsened with the killing of striking workers at the Hacienda Luisita, the
killing of the media and church people and mass activists, and the military
issue of an “enemy list” that includes NGOs, media and church groups and other
legitimate organizations. Under martial law it was
all-out war of the state against the “opposition,” armed or unarmed, underground
or legal. But under a supposedly democratic regime, what are we to think of
state violence against citizens of the republic? Is it just due to the
“recalcitrance of a few,” as Professor Carolina Hernandez said then, that state
violence has recurred? Or is it the mindset among security forces that think
(according to the journalist Arlyn de la Cruz) in terms of “On whose side are
you? Are you with us or are you with the enemy?” Not much different from US
President George Bush’s formulation: “You are either with us or against us” in
his war on terror that our government has fully aligned itself with. Hernandez noted that “state
violence is more vicious and malevolent because, unlike other forms of violence
where individuals are involved, victims cannot look up to the instrumentalities
of the state that are obligated to mediate, mitigate and redress the effects of
violence.” Is this why, to date, none of the crimes against party list and
journalists has been solved. Not one torturer or gross violator of human rights
during the past regimes starting with the dictatorship has been charged or
convicted. Even the financial reparation of human-rights victims during martial
law has been pending for so long. The “state” has been
defined as a neutral agency in the service of the people (Cortes), or an agency
for the rule of law (Diokno) or an executive committee of the ruling class (Sison).
In the Philippine context, it appears that Sison’s definition holds true for the
state where big business and landowners (like Hacienda Luisita) can count on the
protection of state troopers. Bennagen as delegate to the 1987 convention
sought to change this popular notion of the state as protector of the rich in
constitutional debates. Indeed, attempts of the
dispossessed to change structurally the conditions of their poverty are always
met with state repression. Hence, members and allies of blacklisted people’s
organizations and crusading journalists are now seen as targets for elimination.
In 1986 Jose Diokno asked:
“What are we to do? We know the causes—or some of them—of state violence in our
culture. Let us eliminate as many of those causes as we can. Let us take
advantage of the drafting of a new constitution to insist that government
represent also the poor and the have-nots. Let us give priority to their needs.
Let us have a land that is free from foreign bases and from nuclear power. Let
us have a country in which, we, and not the foreigners, decide what is good for
us; and let us respect each other’s beliefs and ideologies, regardless of how
much we may disagree with them. Above all, let us expand our organizations and
let us remain united. Against a united people, no force is strong enough to
prevail. Not even state violence.” A checklist indeed for what still has to be
done. From The Other View, The Manila Times / Posted by Bulatlat with the
author’s permission © 2004 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.
Posted by Bulatlat