The Oakwood mutineers who’ve expressed support for GMA cite closure as one of their reasons. The prominent personalities advocating a "People’s Court" to try, or re-try, the charges in the impeachment complaint say that the process is necessary because the House impeachment did not result in closure. De La Salle University officials sought closure in a press conference held yesterday to announce the results of their internal investigation into the player ineligibility scandal.
According to my trusty Webster’s, closure means a finish, end or conclusion. In parliamentary or legislative practice, closure (or "cloture" in the United States Congress) is the procedure of ending debate and taking a vote, the results of which are presumably honored by all concerned, particularly those whose arguments do not carry the day.
But closure is definitely not what the Oakwood mutiny leaders, the idea of a People’s Court, and DLSU have achieved. There has been no final conclusion. The debates, far from ending, have actually gotten more intense and divisive.
Oakwood Mutiny.–The appearance of four "Magdalo" Army officers on ANC television was a farce, not because of what they said but what they didn’t say. These "core leaders," including officers who were among the most vociferous in the short-lived 2003 takeover of the Makati boutique hotel, faced the TV cameras, escorted by uniformed military guards, to express support for GMA.
The Magdalo leaders can support anyone they wish. But the gibberish they mouthed, e.g. "we just want to put closure to this Magdalo mystique"; "if you stay in your sphere, you will not be lost"; and something to the effect that others might exploit what they had done, came across like the rambling of thoroughly confused juveniles.
They insisted, in the full glare of custodians who stood close by, that they had not been forced or coached into making their statement. Neither, I can concede, had they endured Manchurian Candidate-type mental conditioning to robotically act out what some hidden Big Brother had instructed. So what was the performance, at the specific time it was rendered, in the midst of all the current political turmoil, really all about?
Have they abandoned their "ideals"? Were they taking back what they were yelling out in that dramatic press conference at the hotel lobby? Were the accusations they made about corruption in the AFP and the mistreatment of men in the field false? Was the Feliciano Commission exercise a scandalous waste of time?
Even those who felt that their methods were wrong thought that many of the issues they raised were valid. That these were aired by decorated field soldiers gave their arguments considerable credibility. Their public acceptance of the consequences of their actions, including the possible loss of their bright futures in the military, earned them considerable public understanding, if not quite sympathy.
Now they have lost even that. The possibility of a "deal" negotiated in exchange for their public contrition and expression of support has disappointed many. Even the significance of their support for GMA is diminished, in the same way that roadside cheers of a defeated population for a parading conquering army are suspect.
Their fear that their "mutiny" would be exploited by other parties is misplaced. They were already exploited then, they are being exploited now. Closure? Forget it.
"People’s Court".–Albeit well-intentioned, the idea is bad and is likely to harden, if it is still possible to further harden, GMA’s resolve to stay in office and goad her to take a more combative stance against her detractors. The "decisions" of this Court, even if affirmed by a Citizens’ Congress convened on the alleged authority of Article XIII, Section 15 of the Constitution, will have no legal authority or basis for enforcement.
The real purpose of the convenors, I believe, is to "conscienticize" and therefore so inflame fence-sitting sectors of society, including the Church, the business community and the military, as to cause them to rise up to impose the people’s will. GMA’s "impeachment" by the People’s Court is a foregone conclusion, even in her absence. I doubt that any lawyer or other representative will formally appear on her behalf in a proceeding which Palace officials are already calling a "kangaroo court."
If the expected fiery rhetoric is heard at the "trials," the government might just deem the entire process seditious and bring the heat up several notches. Whether it will come to that, or whether GMA and her supporters will simply ignore the "Court," is entirely her call. But if this idea for some reason does not catch fire, still a possibility despite the hype the "People’s Court" has already received in media, the anti-GMA forces are bound to try something else.
The main reason is that while a People’s Court cannot bring closure, neither can GMA plausibly plead for closure or ask the country to refocus on our pressing economic situation. Too many issues have been left dangling.
The dismissal of the impeachment complaint by the House did not bring closure to the issue of electoral fraud. As the recently-issued Jesuit "Guidelines in a Time of Confusion and Crisis," declare: "While it is true that the procedures of law were fulfilled, the spirit of the law was subverted." Neither has there been closure on the peripatetic Joc-Joc Bolante, the evidently sickly Bert Gonzales or, of course, the missing Garci.
Something, other than clever propaganda or threats of draconian "legal" measures, has to be done to put these issues to rest. Even if all the President’s enemies are herded into jail for sedition or rebellion, even if all businesses "affected with a public interest" are taken over by the government, this country won’t achieve closure. All we would have done is open a Pandora’s Box of immensely more intractable problems.
And by the way, neither did the DLSU administration’s press conference yesterday bring closure to the player ineligibility case. But that I need another column to discuss. We’ll do that next time.