IF there is one important right that should be accorded to any citizen in a representative, democratic political community, it is the right to dissent. After all, the very nature of modern states is that they are restrained by their constitutions, and citizens are sovereign. While there is no bill of rights for the government, there is a bill of rights for citizens. The Hobbesian construct of totally surrendering citizens’ rights to a single sovereign was later replaced by the Lockean principle of a citizen’s right to take back the rights entrusted to the sovereign. This eventually led to the shifting of sovereignty away from the kings and rulers and to the people, with the emergence and wide acceptance of representative democracy as the mode by which social order is maintained.
Thus, it is simply against the principles of modern democracies to penalize legitimate dissent, since it amounts to the curtailment of a demandable right. The right to dissent is not a mere conditional exercise of privilege. The only justifiable basis to deny a person such right is when the act already amounts to political violence. And this should be in the context of the existence of an actual threat to the state itself, and not just to the comfort and convenience of its leaders. In short, anyone can freely criticize government, or even the president, without fear of being accused of destabilizing government itself, and being hauled to court for it.
Despite the fact that dissent is a demandable and constitutionally protected right and hence one cannot be punished for its legitimate exercise, some governments find ways to harass or punish its critics through various means. While this is not to say that violations of libel and sedition laws should be tolerated, it is also a well-known fact that many governments and government functionaries all over the world have inflicted vengeance on their critics through the legal system. This includes filing tax evasion or other criminal charges. And this, even as allies and supporters are spared, thereby making the process selective and biased. Thus, ends up becoming a weapon of the state not only to maintain order, but to punish its critics and to harass dissenters.
Dissent can also be punished through the denial of entitlements or privileges to persons, whether actual or juridical. The regulatory powers of government are summoned to exact vengeance on those perceived as critical, as a way to strike fear among critics and to intimidate and curtail dissent.
It is here that one can see the foot-dragging our Congress, which is dominated by government allies, is doing in relation to the renewal of the franchise of the ABS-CBN television network. At the outset, President Rodrigo Duterte had already declared war on this giant network, which he accused it of failing to air his political campaign ads despite getting full payment. The network is also widely perceived by die-hard Duterte supporters (DDS) as “yellow” media, and accused of being biased in its reportage of the President. The President has also repeatedly vowed that he would block the renewal of ABS-CBN’s franchise. Thus, it is reasonable to suspect that the delay, if not inaction, by Congress on the renewal of ABS-CBN’s franchise may be a clear retaliatory act in compliance with the President’s wish. It doesn’t assuage this fear that the DDS cheer with glee at the prospect of ABS-CBN not having its franchise renewed.
What happened to the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP) may even be worse. Congress has already approved the bill transforming the PUP into a national university and changing its name to the National Technological University (NTU). But the President vetoed the bill, arguing that PUP is allegedly not performing well compared to other national universities. This reasoning of the President was put in serious doubt when days later he was quoted as making a snide remark that he wouldn’t care if PUP closed down. And in the same breath, he made reference to the allegations that PUP is a breeding ground for student activism. This has been a widely articulated charge made by both government officials and by the DDS against PUP. Not surprisingly, the DDS relishes, in the same way they celebrate the impending demise of ABS-CBN, the prospect of the PUP’s closure.
If indeed ABS-CBN broke its contractual obligations to then candidate Duterte, the proper remedy is to file a case in court, instead of retaliating through a denial of the renewal of a franchise. In addition, refusing to renew a franchise as a retaliation over a network’s perceived political biases is an unwarranted abuse of state power when weighed against the right to dissent. Media bias is a matter of perception, and if one has to be a purist crusader against it, then government must also call out all biases, including those that are unabashedly held by its apologists.
What PUP is going through, of being punished and denied something which even a Congress dominated by Duterte allies has seen fit to bestow on it, on the flimsy excuse that it is not performing well, is a patent form of injustice. Student activism is part of the culture of universities. It is an expression of a fundamental right by students. For a university to be punished for having student activists is almost like punishing a person for breathing.
What is lost on the President and his loyal DDS is that ABS-CBN and PUP are not just offices, but are communities. They have employees who do not even care about politics, some of whom are probably even Duterte supporters. ABS-CBN and PUP employees are working to earn a living. PUP students are mostly poor. And yet, we see the specter of the DDS celebrating the prospect that they will be punished simply because ABS-CBN is perceived to have a bias against the President and PUP allegedly breeds student activists.
https://www.manilatimes.net/2019/09/24/opinion/columnists/topanalysis/punishing-dissent/620716/
