Political radical, Englishman Philosopher Jeremy Bentham advocated a classic anvil upon which the sword of public policy should be tooled and retooled. Bentham said: ‘it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong …” Later on, I read its deviant as the greatest good for the greatest number should be the main reason for being of any government. Additionally I subscribed to the utilitarian precept: “the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome …” These in mind I looked askance on how the Congress of the Philippines makes laws; how questionnable craftsmanship is applied to the policy making process.
Pre-Christmas 2012 could be the greatest ever for Filipinos on matters of public policy making when honourable policymakers and policy implementors received their long overdue bashing from vigilant netizens before an awed cyberworld audience.
The dynamics initiated by netizens to join the war between “good and evil” in public policy as exemplified by the shouting and shooting word war between protagonists and antagonists in the mummified RH Bill, the embalmed FOI Bill, the mortal sinners sponsoring the Sin Tax Bill, and the trigger-happy gunslinging authors of the CyberCrime Law of onli in the Da Pilipins.
Read the Blogs of Ms Raissa Robles, Ellen Tordesillas, Manuel Buencamino in the Enchanted Kingdom, etcetera, etc. to realize concurrent developments. In the Blogosphere of Cyberspace, Filiipinos at home and in diaspora open up like the heavens in downpours that shame empty rhetoric and unmask cosmetic punditry. Armed with reason and science and patriotic ideals the netizens seeks the jugular in their comments to draw blood after every column written by Tiglao, Doronila, and even De Quiros . Writing skills become superficial against the integrity yardstick of netizens.
The internet libel law masquerading as the cybercrime law more than anything else aims to shield from exposure and ridicule wrong doers in government. Whereas before, bullets then deaths for crusading journalists were more effective alternatives to libel law; times have changed when the law started going after killers of journalists. Wrong doers’ alleged choice now is giving more teeth to judicial protection, threats and revenge.
Raissa’s Blogs have the facts to give weight to an emerging critical conjecture to a deteriorated policy process. She wrote: “FIRST, we owe the present law mainly to 19 lawmakers who crafted the final version in a Bicameral Conference Committee. . . . FIFTH, the House of Representatives approved its version of the Cybercrime bill on Third Reading in “por kilo” fashion. This national law was sandwiched among 40 other mainly local bills and the entire lot was approved at one go during one voting under the direction of Congresswoman Mar-Len Abigail “Nancy” Binay, who was then the presiding officer. . . .This means by simply voting “Yes” just once, each congressman signified approval of ALL 41 bills, including the Cybercrime bill. . . . The Cybercrime Crime law was a “certified” piece of legislation by PNoy, according to House Journal 49 on the May 9, 2012 floor deliberations. [Note: It was for this reason that its passage was rushed.] On the same day, amendments to the bill were introduced and the bill was approved on SECOND READING.” Thanks Ms. Raissa.
http://raissarobles.com/2012/10/05/the-cybercrime-law-was-brought-to-you-by-7-senators-12-congressmen/
Some other media and writers might write on WHO in Congress and HOW they back flipped on their endorsement, support, and votes for the bill after relentless protests by netizens and cause-oriented groups. It’s a shame but let others deliver the jabs and uppercuts to the thick-faced among our policy makers.
P Noy signed the bill into law. The buck stops at P Noy. So he should be boiled in used crude oil? HOLD IT, Hold it. Hold it! P Noy wants the law to protect himself from exposure and ridicule? Is that it? OR Did his friends and party mates who need it more made him certify and then sign it?
If P Noy did not sign the bill, will there be a nuclear blast from the citizenry against an idiotic, oppressive, tyrannical law? Public criticisms of the new law had exposed and finally stripped the lawmakers of their sheer garments of respectability, competence and feigned concern for public interest. Shall we blame P Noy’s guardian angel who interposed no objections to urgings to certify the bill then signed it into law. PNoy vetoing the bill could have ignited a revolt of the unmentionables which can create a deep abyss in his tuwid na daan. Myeterious ways indeed, could be the ways of angels too. Will P Noy do an encore in the case of the sin tax bill after the Senate Committee chair had already resigned in shame or honor?
The Sin Tax bill is a complicated tug of war without the rope. Is the policy choice mutually exclusive between the health of the largest chunk of the population versus the livelihood of the relatively not so big number of tobacco farmers? Is the choice narrowed down into an ultimate consequence: cancer (for a larger population) versus pesos for smaller group of tobacco farmers? In public policy making it is a given that: it is the business of businessmen and women to last and stay stronger in business by hook or by public policy. It is the call of policy makers, pundits and cause -oriented defenders of the disadvantaged sectors to contribute wisdom to the process of rationalizing policy costs and benefits in favor of the people against big business. If you have missed it, read Ms Nori D. Sagun’s piece in the last issue of BALITA: http://www.balita.ca/2012/10/sin/
Harold Lasswell may well serve the quick thinking suffering and broke man in the street who should ask: If the 60 billion pesos proceeds from the tax has been watered down to only 15 billion pesos (tax revenue of the government) how much INCREASE will the tobacco farmers realized and how much windfall will go to cigarette manufacturers after deducting bribes and lobbying costs?
Harold Lasswell by the way brought the intricate policy process and analysis into street level understanding not by defining but by REFINING it into: “Who gets what, where, when, WHY and How?”
In contextual Philippines (“only in da Pilipins”), the end of the road for any or ALL public policy must be WHO BENEFITS? The greatest good for the greatest number may not be the case. Whether in the short or in the long run matters very little when a business or political shark makes the big kill. Take the end of the road of the VALUE ADDED TAX (VAT) benevolently gifted to big business, etc. The poorest of the poor got bludgeoned in the head while the corrupt got their reason to pat and fatten their pockets through public projects..
Public policy goals seldom concern itself deeply enough on WHO GET HURTS? Or what is NO GOOD for the greatest number. On reproductive health policy it seems the focus is NOT the health of mothers, infants and children but church dogma and evangelism. Also the notable Sin Tax Bill where the alleged concern is NOT the diminution of cancer-sick addicted chain or passive smokers but support for the well being of the tobacco industry. It is burning sarcasm if not too cynical and probably truthful to ask as public policy goal: should there be any, WHO POCKETS THE WINDFALLS?
Whether politicians like it or not the internet have given NETIZENS the eyes of eagles. A man’s front vision may cover 120 degrees; those of eagles is four times sharper and can cover even the back with vision span of more than 270 degrees. The time calls for eagles to watch over Philippine policy making as it tackles especially national policy still pending on reproductive health and the Freedom Of Information.