How did Father ‘Beppe’ really get released?

President Macapagal-Arroyo is right. It was forthright of her to have asserted over her weekly radio program – after being informed that the Italian missionary, Fr. Giuseppe "Beppe" Pierantoni, had been freed unharmed by his "Pentagon Gang" abductors in Zamboanga-Sibugay – that her policy has been to get the kidnappers, not primarily the kidnap victim.

The Chief Executive admitted that she had told the Philippine National Police: "Don’t make the rescue of the priest as your specific target." In the process, however, she said the priest had been saved. Now, it takes courage for a President to state that arresting or gunning down the gangsters is her priority, not the "rescue" of their hostages. But that’s the way it should be: when kidnappers and other bandits are permitted to escape, to kidnap or kill again, and afflict more harm and suffering on the population, crime continues to flourish.

If our lawmen and soldiers hesitate to strike for fear of harming hostages, then the gangsters or rebels will get the first bullet in – and our policemen and soldiers will be the ones dying instead.

The same rules, although it sounds harsh to have to say it, ought to apply in Basilan to the already too long-drawn-out campaign against the Abu Sayyaf. As it is, the Abus have shown themselves tougher than our military painted them out to be, and – despite all that recent hype about the wounding and "almost" capture in Lamitan of ASG leader Aldam Tilao, a.k.a. Abu Sabaya – they still remain difficult to track down. That’s why it was counter-productive to have described the Abus to foreign correspondents as "mere kidnappers for ransom" and scurvy bandits, not mujahideen or bona fide rebels. Never underestimate the enemy. If such a sneering attitude doesn’t prove fatal, it at least leads to embarrassment.

I’m sure all the "war correspondents" who flocked to Zamboanga and Basilan two months ago have all gone away, in search of a real war – like that in the Palestinian West Bank. Even what’s going on in Afghanistan has been nudged off the headlines, and is beginning to look like the "aftermath" of the anti-Taleban and anti-Al Qaeda war. On the other hand, foreign correspondents over there are still hanging on to their bleacher seats. They must by now realize that the new "civil war" is just beginning. When the United States and the western alliance helped "liberate" Afghanistan from the Taleban, they freed them to fight, once again, among themselves.

This is a crazy world. War, not peace, seems to be a priority of the human condition.

* * *

Instead of things becoming clearer, the mystery is deepening over how Father Pierantoni got released by the ruthless "Pentagon". The Italian priest himself has been openly and candidly saying on television that he didn’t get rescued – he was "let go" by his captors.

I wonder why Interior and Local Governments Secretary Joey Lina keeps on insisting that Father "Beppe" was rescued by PNP action in complete contradiction of what the victim himself has been stating. Lina even claimed the priest was "confused". How can Father Pierantoni possibly be confused about the manner in which he was freed? If there had been a firefight or a Special Action Force assault on the "Pentagon" Gang, the Padre would have heard the gunshots and explosions.

As for the "Pentagon" Gang’s surprising decision to release their victim, after dragging him all over the landscape for almost six months, how did this come about? Those hoodlums, who are the kidnap-for-ransom "fund-raising" arm of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), I’ve always said, aren’t given to sudden fits of generosity. Either ransom was paid (by whom?) or somehow the government put the squeeze on them to force them to free the Italian.

PNP Director General Larry Mendoza, alas, wasn’t convincing when he appeared on television with GMA, the freed priest, Lina, etc., in that "teledrama" by which the Administration and the PNP tried to claim credit for "recovering" Pierantoni. The general said they just "found" Pierantoni as they were attacking the kidnap gang members (how had the priest, all by himself, managed to slip away from his guards?) In fairness to Mendoza, he had that bemused expression on his face which indicated he didn’t really believe his own story.

Anyway, it’s a happy ending – sort of. At least, the good Father is safe. Was it truly a "miracle", or was that miraculous release man-made? There hangs a tale.

* * *

Alikabok tells me that the names of the two "new" Supreme Court justices will be announced very soon. We’ll know, when those names are known, whether the President has selected the new Associate Justices on the basis of competence, integrity, and probity. Or has she, in a process of "deep selection", chosen them on the basis of their being malleable – in short, ready to do Malacañang’s bidding? This is pivotal. For there is a fourth qualification which the Constitution itself imposes: that of independence.

To understand the importance of this fourth qualification, perhaps we should make a detour down memory lane.

During his first term, United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt was so popular he was able to get from Congress virtually every measure he requested. The Democratic Party-controlled House and Senate were accused of having become mere "rubber stamps" for that Democratic president. On the other hand, while both Houses were completely cooperative, it was feared by FDA’s "New Dealers" that the Supreme Court might prove more intransigent. After all, seven of the nine members of that High Tribunal had been appointed by earlier Republican presidents, and only two by Democrat, President Woodrow Wilson.

Those fears were confirmed when the Supreme Court nullified a series of ‘"New Deal" statutes or pieces of legislation. President Roosevelt, intent on pushing through his programs and reforms, decided to directly address this "unacceptable" situation. Thus, he proposed to Congress a bill which he described as a "Court-reorganization plan." Those who were quick to scent something devious in the White House-sponsored bill vehemently opposed it as a "court-packing" subterfuge. FDR’s proposed law was soundly defeated in the Senate.

President Ferdinand E. Marcos managed to pack the Philippine Supreme Court with his friends and classmates. Most of the late dictator’s appointees to the High Court, though six of them were his University of the Philippines (Law ’30) classmates, were admittedly brilliant. What they lacked, however, was the all-important virtue: Independence of mind in decision-making. This is why the Supreme Court, from 1973 to 1986, was referred to more frequently as the "Marcos Supreme Court", rather than the Fred Ruiz Castro, Enrique Fernando, Felix Makasiar or Ramon Aquino Supreme Courts.

The present Supreme Court is supposed to go into the history and law books." Heaven forbid that it will ever be known as the "GMA Supreme Court." It’s up to President Macapagal-Arroyo to decide whether she wants to be known to future generations as a President who upheld the dignity and independence of that Supreme Tribunal, or whether she preferred to bend it to her whim and caprice.

The latter self-indulgence would be only for the moment — in history’s long march, the equivalent of a wink of the eye. Upholding "justice", on the other hand, would grant La Gloria . . . well, the glory of respectful and affectionate immortality.

* * *

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) didn’t fool anybody when they withdrew from the Palestinian towns of Tulkarm and Qalqiliya. But that "pull-out" gave US President George W. Bush a breathing spell. Bush was able to murmur that it was a kind of compliance to his call for an Israeli withdrawal. However, the IDF is still ferociously fighting to root out the Palestinian die-hards in Jenin, and intend to stay put in Nablus, the other center of Palestinian resistance. It must be noticed that the Israelis are edging towards another Palestinian stronghold more to the south — Hebron.

A word about Nablus. The hatred between Jews and the people of Nablus dates back thousands of years. Some of the inhabitants of that city are known to us Christians from our own New Testament: they are the "Samaritans." Does that ring a bell?

In his 1962 book (updated in 1984), one of my favorite travel writers, H.V. Morton ("In the Steps of the Master"), described the population there as "fanatical Moslems" Morton recounted that he "had come to Nablus to see the strangest and most ancient sect in the world — the Samaritans. These people have remained absolutely pure in blood for 2,500 years. They claim they are the only true representatives of the ancient children of Israel, and they hate the Jews today almost as much as they did in the time of Christ."

Mind you, Morton wrote those lines in 1962.

Of course, in the next paragraph he revealed: "The anaemic relics of this once powerful race number only about one hundred and fifty. They have nothing in common with the twenty thousand Moslems among whom they live." Yes, but they are still related, I must add. If the Samaritans were children of Israel, and the Palestinians, like all Arabs, are Semites – like the Jews – they are all descended from Abraham. The Biblical story about the Curse of Cain, therefore, applies in the light of ancient history to the current conflict.

A final thing was observed by Morton about the Samaritans of Nablus. "It is a curious thing that, owing to Christ’s parable about the Samaritan, the word ‘good’ has become attached to their names and the term ‘good Samaritan’ is used every day to indicate anyone who is noble and self-sacrificing. Whereas the feeling among the Jews at the time of Christ was that a more violent and unpleasant people than the Samaritans never existed. Those two people loathed each other and the dislike the modern Samaritan professes for the Jew is a survival of the world’s most ancient hatred."

Hatred, alas, is what one finds in surplus in the Middle East, the homeland of three of the world’s great religions – Christianity, Islam and the Hebrew faith.

* * *

Also in the limelight today is the Church of the Nativity, where 200 Palestinians are holed up, resisting the threats of surrounding Israeli troops and armor who have encircled this holy Christian shrine. Will the Israelis attack and "destroy" that church? That’s the burning question of the hour.

The first time this writer went to Bethlehem in 1965 was just before Christmas Eve. Here’s how it was described by me at the time: "Destroyed and rebuilt many times, the shrine is one of the oldest recorded churches in Christendom having been originally constructed by St. Helena, mother of Emperor Constantine, around 320 A.D. You enter the edifice by a door so low one must stoop to gain access. The historical reason is that over-enthusiastic pilgrims centuries ago used to ride their horses all the way into the church.

"Today, the towering structure, roofed with English oak, supported by the remnants of Byzantine pillars, festooned with silver icons from Russia, hung with incense-burners of silver and gold, and decorated with gold-gilt carved doors of cedar from Lebanon, almost smothers the tiny grotto underneath. On Christmas Eve, it looked like a New York or Tokyo subway station during the rush hour, with tour groups being herded here and there by guides who attempted to outshout each other.

"The actual cave where Jesus was born is reached by going down a narrow flight of stairs on either side: One-way traffic with a dark-blue uniformed policeman directing. You are too busy jostling your way through the crowd to think too many holy thoughts and when you kneel to kiss the ground, marked by the silver outlines of a star, the spot where Jesus was reputed to have been laid in swaddling clothes, the policeman standing nearby taps you on the shoulder: ‘All right, all right, you have finished already. Move on. Move on’.

"Midnight Mass at the shrine proved no more tranquil and spiritually uplifting. Only those holding special tickets were permitted entry into the Church of St. Catherine (adjoining the cave) to hear the pontifical High Mass, the culmination of a day of processions and celebration. The lucky hundreds with tickets were crammed inside, while several thousands, stamping their feet against the bitter cold outside, struggled to push their way in. Two fist fights broke out within the church during the services, while outside a loud argument erupted between soldiers and policemen on the one hand and a group of angry civilians on the other. A woman struggled through the throng, wailing that her bag had been snatched. If there was ‘peace on earth’ on Christmas Eve, it must have been somewhere else."

I’ve been back to Bethlehem three times over the years, the last time in 1996. It’s never "the little town of Bethlehem . . . how still we see thee lie."

What always struck me is how close it lies to Jerusalem. The Bible story always makes into great journeys what today comprise only expeditions of two hours or less by car or bus. As for Bethlehem, it’s only six kilometers south of Jerusalem – a ten-minute ride. But "peace" it hasn’t got.