Davide offended by Time article on people power

Neither TIME magazine nor Britney Spears understands the people power phenomenon.

Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. took offense recently with a Jan. 29 essay in TIME magazine that used the title of a Britney Spears song to describe people power II.

The essay, written by Anthony Spaeth, was entitled "Oops,we did it again."

"This is an unjust and unfair assumption. Neither people power I nor people power II was an error of judgment," the 65-year-old magistrate told those who attended the panel discussion held at the Supreme Court.

The forum, entitled "The impact of people power on our legal system," was attended by Dean Raul Pangalangan, lawyer Katrina Legarda, and UP sociology professor Randy David, among other personalities.

Davide said such observations peddled by the international newsmagazine obviously showed "bias for intrigue rather than fair reportage," and only demonstrates how some people have a "very shallow appreciation of the dynamics behind people power."

"The title of Spears’ popular song implies that with people power II, we Filipinos repeated a mistake of the past. That they (EDSA I and II) occurred at all may remain a historical mystery — yet a mystery the Filipinos fully understand," he said.

In particular, Davide was piqued by observations that such uprisings "could portend a troubling future for democracy." He was also disturbed by the statement that people power became an "acceptable term for a troubling phenomenon: one that used to be known as mob rule."

He reminded that "people were indignant because (Ferdinand) Marcos allegedly abused his power, suppressed liberties, violated human rights and exercised wholesome nepotism and cronyism."

"Mr. (Joseph) Estrada, on the other hand, allegedly wasted his popular mandate, suppressed the truth and used the presidency for personal aggrandizement. In both cases, the people simply ran out of options," he stressed.

And Davide couldn’t help but compare the two non-violent uprisings – that against former President Marcos in 1986 and former President Estrada 15 years later.

"They tried to call for Marcos’ resignation: he gave them a snap election. They tried to call for Estrada’s resignation: he gave them an impeachment trial. These were measures adopted by both men to appease a restive populace," he said.

According to him, EDSA I was "extra-constitutional" which was why questions that arose from its legitimacy could not be the subject of judicial review, while EDSA II was the other way around, an "intra-constitutional" one.

"EDSA I presented a political question; EDSA II involves legal questions," he said.

Davide nevertheless advised that "public vigilance is the real key" to preserving the gains of the two uprisings.

"As long as our public officials are aware that their words and deeds are being scrutinized, that they are carefully watched, and the people demand at all times faithful adherence to the public trust character of public offices, any tendency toward indiscretion or digression would be stifled," he said.