Madonna and Pacquiao: Is #Edsa30 superficial?

Manny Pacquiao and Madonna. AP FILE PHOTOS

SINGAPORE—How did international media depict us during the Edsa Revolution’s 30th anniversary (hashtag #Edsa30)?

First, the New York Times published “Some Filipinos Still Yearn for Marcos” on how “the Marcos family legacy is undergoing a political renaissance.”

Second, we are deemed less tolerant than China because we want to ban Madonna after she wrapped herself in our flag. Mainland Chinese decried how her previous concert similarly featured Taiwan’s flag.

Third, basketball legend Magic Johnson, mixed martial arts champion Ronda Rousey and Drax the Destroyer (wrestler Dave Bautista from “Guardians of the Galaxy”) gave scathing responses to Rep. Manny Pacquiao’s comment that homosexuals are worse than animals (“mas masahol pa sa hayop”).

#Edsa30 has moved from basking in global adulation to critical introspection.

“Titas of Manila” are still gushing over Madonna’s concert, especially her special #Edsa30 tribute of “Crazy for You,” which she has not sung live in 30 years. Yet our National Historical Commission claims she could be jailed for a year under the Flag and Heraldic Code (Republic Act No. 8491) because she wore our flag and allowed it to touch the floor.

Isn’t it ironic? #Edsa30 recounts how one could once be jailed for singing “Bayan Ko,” yet one can still be jailed over a song today? Those who caught the irony recall the Beatles’ cold departure in 1966.

At TedX Diliman 2013, I watched Joey Ayala sing one of our national anthem’s most beautiful interpretations. He made it more Filipino by rearranging the military march into a gentler kundiman. He changed the final words “ang mamatay nang dahil sa iyo” because it should not end speaking of death.

The audience both reveled in patriotism and spontaneously joked about being jailed. The Flag Code prohibits singing the anthem in any different way. Free speech violations do not get more blatant than that.

The Flag Code has even been used to threaten Martin Nievera, Jessica Sanchez and Arnel Pineda after they sang our anthem to open Pacquiao’s boxing matches, even if it cannot be enforced in Las Vegas!

#Edsa30 celebrates Jim Paredes in 1986, but do we internalize how it celebrates Joey Ayala and Madonna today?

On Pacquiao, it should be clear that the issue was not same-sex marriage. Marriage is a public institution, which is why persons want their relationship called “marriage,” not some “domestic partnership.” Each of us has a right to discuss this institution. Although there are compelling human rights arguments that each person has a right to marry and human rights may be invoked by one person against an entire country, human rights are more meaningful when supported by popular conviction.

The issue was a congressman and living national symbol portraying an entire category of Filipinos as worse than animals. In a democracy, disagreement begins from the premise that the other side has the same dignity he does.

Pacquiao himself made the distinction and apologized for his manner of disagreement, even as he reiterated his disagreement. Yet we debate whether he said anything wrong at all. Typical reactions miss the point, such as the argument that since gay comedians routinely make fun of Pacquiao’s mother, homosexuals should not complain about the “masahol pa sa hayop” quip.

Isn’t it ironic? As #Edsa30 recalls how nuns led human walls, religious and political leaders defend Pacquiao. As we recall the pain of martial law victims, we seem numb to the deeply emotional reactions of our LGBT friends. An Inquirer editorial had to stress that there are consequences in a democracy for saying that an entire group of Filipinos are “masahol pa sa hayop” (“Startling bigotry,” 2/20/16).

#Edsa30 celebrates ordinary people standing in the streets with strangers, yet we too readily exclude those outside an arbitrary image of who is Filipino. We laugh at Donald Trump’s proposals to ban Muslims and repost Charlie Hebdo cartoons in the name of free speech, yet ignore our own cruel Muslim stereotypes. Sen. Grace Poe’s case seems to reflect our laws’ inability to see the world from overseas Filipino workers’ perspectives.

And I certainly felt alone when few non-Chinese Filipinos condemned how national artist F. Sionil Jose wrote that Chinese-Filipinos must proclaim their loyalty, and when online trolls branded UP valedictorian Tiffy Uy not a real Filipino.

It is heartwarming how #Edsa30 has sparked unprecedented reflection on Edsa and the stories of the youngest martyrs such as Liliosa Hilao, Archimedes Trajano, Boyet Mijares and Edgar Jopson are being shared in social media. However, to paraphrase Joey Ayala, patriotism best honors life, not death.

Should we not reflect on what kind of country Hilao, Trajano, Mijares and Jopson would have built, beyond how they died? Should we not reflect on #Edsa30 in the context of Madonna concerts, not just martial law?

* * *

The Supreme Court has done well in making key hearings accessible. Livetweeting and instant news reports put it in the center of national debate. The philosophical “vital national seminar” has become real and our most vocal justices have become recognizable icons.

However, the actual proceedings remain intimidating to the ordinary spectator. For the Poe case, one must listen to 20 hours of hearings and skim hundreds of pages of written comment.

Taking lessons from the Inquirer/GMA presidential debate, perhaps the Supreme Court could provide same-day transcripts of hearings, in addition to Twitter summaries, considering our country has transcription outsourcing industries. Perhaps it might also allow live video, not just audio, to capture the intellectual and emotional issues being debated in their full humanity.

* * *

React: oscarfranklin.tan@yahoo.com.ph, Twitter @oscarfbtan, facebook.com/OscarFranklinTan.