Atty. Israelito Torreon is doing a wonderful job explaining legal matters to ordinary people the issues involving the Kingdom of Jesus Christ (KOJC). The law is always complex but he always makes that impassioned effort to make us understand the relevant rules pertaining to the same. I think that more than anything else, we must try to evaluate these things beyond our often-myopic views and prejudices. For one, the obvious bias against KOJC is apparent. The attitude of the public would have been different if the party involved were a famous celebrity. Some would even cry state oppression.
The Catholic Church is amazingly silent on the matter. This is about freedom of religion, and the evident belittling of the KOJC by many online through their reactions shows the lack of respect in our society for the basic rights of others. Mainstream media too is obviously biased. In fairness, some networks have improved their reporting, although the emphasis has always been to pin down Pastor Apollo C. Quiboloy. The alleged violations in serving the warrant of arrest as explained by Atty. Torreon are simply disregarded. Police authorities chose to ignore the Writ of Amparo issued by a court of law in Davao City.
What is glaring is the prejudice of some people. For instance, in their exchange, Noli de Castro refused to hear Atty. Torreon during an interview. Kabayan instead attempted to draw the sympathy of the public to his side by suggesting that he is not a lawyer, and that ordinary people are not lawyers. In reality, we may not be lawyers but the behavior of the former Vice President showed forth the value of learning from those who know better if we only care to listen. But the disrespect is apparent. When he said if ACQ is God then he should show up to prove his innocence, he wasn’t insulting the pastor but the believers who belong to KOJC.
Indeed, those who take the side of the state are actually losing the political debate. But what is happening right now has a bigger context. The same is apparent in the Congressional hearings wherein it is no longer about inquiries “in aid of legislation” but of the war between the House of Marcos and the House of Duterte, post-Uniteam. On surface, people only see the narrative of right versus wrong, of good and bad, even the sort of a simple question and answer. But no, it’s not. What we are witnessing in our political lives has something to do with the dynamics of power and its symbolism, of domination and defiance, the might of the state against the majesty of the law.
There is a distinction between politics and the political, writes Carl Schmitt. Politics has something to do with the role and function of institutions. But the political is about relations of power. It is no surprise that politicians change loyalties because in reality, it is a question of survival. It’s not just about one man or an office that must defend itself against one’s adversaries. It is a struggle for power and significance, of trying hard moralists and nincompoops, of bright men and women and those among us who will remain pawns in the grand scheme of things.
Society thinks that it is guided by morality but in practice, that’s not really the case. Michel Foucault tells us that it operates on the dynamics of power. People easily make judgments against others. It’s the law that governs what we do and how we must act, so that to say that the abstract principles of moral behavior should guard us against the ill motives can mean nothing. If there’s no law against libel or defamation, people would readily hurl insults against each other. But as you can see, the norms of moral conduct do not matter in the realm of the political, as congressional hearings would show. It is never a “yes or no” question. It is always a “we/us” against “them/they”. We live in interesting times. In truth, good people would willingly do anything in order to achieve their ends. It’s about power. And it corrupts even the best among men.
