This is in reaction to Mr. Richard Dy’s ‘Why I’d Punch the Sheriff too’ as published in the Philippine Collegian on July 5, 2011.
The mythical Athenian hero Theseus once said that ‘there is no worse enemy than he who keeps the law on his own hands’. A tyrant finds it hateful when people reason with wisdom and live with a sense of justice because he fears they will shake his power. A tyrant leads with the force of fear, far from a system of legitimate power and institutions a democratic state enjoy.
For the democratic system to work, rule of law must exist and be preserved. For rule of law to be sustained, the law that the people has crafted must apply to all; be it to the poor (who should have more in law) or the ignorant (who knew nothing of the law).
The recent event involving the informal settlers of Davao City, the court sheriff and the city mayor uncovers a two-prong issue. One, it illustrates the antithesis of the democracy we ought to enjoy; and two, it shows the fragility of the rule of law, especially when the one who should sustain it breaks the system with his own hands. And with impunity.
The use of violence, especially by one government body to another, is a manifestation of a collective impunity some of us have casted upon ourselves. In the case at hand, the settler’s rioting used violence to get what they want, no matter how unlawful their wants are; the mayor used violence against a fellow civil servant to prove (or push) a point. The observation that ‘the people in social media were wrong in using the Machiavellian concept to justify the idea of destroying homes’ is correct; because between the informal settlers and the sheriff, it is the former who have resorted to unlawful means to get what they wanted.
The scenario begs two questions. First, would the presence of Mayor prior to demolition assure that the violence would not take place? If that is so, wouldn’t it be prudent for the city mayor to ask the settlers days in advance to vacate their homes to eliminate conflict altogether? Such didn’t and is not expected to happen; it is because violence has always been the currency informal settlers use in buying time; and given the court’s ruling, it pays to do so. Even the mayor concurred to that notion.
Second, the scenario begs the question of where the city mayor stand on the demolition issue. It was said that Duterte took the side of the informal settlers when she punched the court sheriff; but she did not. She merely requested for a postponement; she even let the local police force to accompany the sheriff. Government rarely takes the side of informal settlers because of one inconvenient truth: they are doing so against the law. Duterte, even with the punching antics, was never an exception.
The issue here is not about violence, choosing whom to call violent, or what kind of violence a particular group sees. It is about a Theban leader in an Athenian system of government, and the implication of such dynamics in a state struggling to move forward. It doesnt matter if it happened in Rizal, or in Ilocos, or in Davao. And despite the ironies and contradiction, it is not a matter to be settled by the fist.
