CLARK FIELD — The stories of the wife and sons of former military comptroller Carlos F. Garcia being caught at a US airport carrying $100,000 each without the required declaration reminds me of my own brush with American customs.

Years ago, I was on a Philippine Airlines flight from San Francisco to Manila with the usual technical stop in Hawaii. It was nighttime when we landed in Honolulu.

It would have been routine except that we were told to bring down all our things – which was a big bother for most of the sleepy passengers who were, by my estimate, 80 percent returning Filipinos weighed down by bags and packages.

Seeing the ordeal of my fellow passengers, I asked the customs inspector in the holding area why we had to bring down everything and if they also required this of passengers of other airlines.

* * *

ME A SAMPLE: Apparently he resented my question and hint of discrimination. He said gruffly they make random checks on travelers’ possibly carrying more than the $10,000 limit without declaring it.

But I don’t see anyone checking anybody’s bags, I said.

Thereupon he made of me a sample. With everybody watching, he made a big ceremony of inspecting my briefcase, checking my pockets, rummaging through my personal things and rifling through my wallet. The imagined $10,000 was not found.

Judging from his haughty behavior, he must have wanted to teach me a lesson for presuming to question their procedure.

* * *

HARASSMENT: I accused him to his face that he was harassing me. I demanded to know his name, but he refused to give it. He asked why I wanted it and I said I had to know whom to cite when I file my report. The more he refused.

It was not fair, I protested. He knew my personal circumstances but I did not know his name. Americans brag about their alleged fairness. But there I was being harassed by an idiot in uniform who knew my identity, and more, but refused to say who he was.

At this point, I asked for his supervisor. He had no choice but to call him. To my surprise, even the supervisor refused to give the name of his officious underling!

* * *

ENRICHING DEBATE: I am recalling this incident to segue to the need (1) for people to identify themselves when engaging others, and (2) for ground rules for public debates to be made clear and enforceable.

The free discussion of public issues, especially in media, is enriched and made less susceptible to distortion when a full symphony of voices is heard and heeded in good faith.

But the debate is debased when off-tangent and paid partisan comments are forced into the democratic space in an attempt to mislead the discussion and the conclusions.

* * *

IDENTIFY YOURSELF: Authors with by-lines in media are properly identified. They take full responsibility for what they say or write.

But the same cannot be said of readers and kibitzers who hide behind cryptic user-names and aliases. Not constrained by traceability and a sense of responsibility, many of them seem to have no duty to civility, truth and fairness.

As in my confrontation with that customs officer in Honolulu, my position is that when two persons engage each other in a public discussion, it is only fair that they be identified properly.

We cannot trust the darkness from where partisans and hecklers operate when lashing out or maliciously commenting on other people.

* * *

BAN COWARDS: Media websites should require all commentators and reactors to register their true identities, their email addresses and physical locations where they can be served summons.

Their comments or reactions must not be posted without their true names, email addresses or other traceable attributes. Cowards who hide behind aliases must be banned.

As for texting and/or emailing brigades that operate behind the bushes, fairness dictates that the operator and his operatives be identified and held accountable for messages they spread around.

This suggestion does not apply to blogs where people just want to say harmless little things. But once they comment negatively on actions and statements of others, they should identify and locate themselves.

* * *

LOVE BUG: Looking forward, Congress should legislate well ahead of the fact, so when a legal situation arises from computer-aided interactions there is an applicable law for possible torts and responsibilities.

Remember the deadly “I love you” computer virus that a young Filipino programmer, Onel de Guzman, created a decade ago? He ignited a cyber conflagration that burned more than 45 millions people in more than 30 countries lured by a false promise of love.

Before a vaccine was found and the Love Bugs’ creator cornered in his Manila apartment, the virus had crippled critical communication facilities worldwide, slowed down industries and hobbled the world wide web of the Internet.

* * *

NO LAW, NO CRIME: But at that time there was no Philippine law making his destructive fling a crime. It is the law that makes an act a crime, and there was yet no local law specifically penalizing what he did, so he went scot-free.

Besides, a dozen techno-giants vied to spring and sign up the AMA-trained programmer who loomed in their minds as a genius of sorts.

Aside from the media laying down clear and enforceable ground rules for blog-type public debates in their websites, Congress should enact laws to govern such exchanges in the clouds.

In all this, there should be fairness and accountability by having everybody who engages in cyber debate to identify himself and give his location where he can be served summons.