Weakened foundations
The Filipino people appreciate the candor of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte. Yes, his spin doctors regularly work on overdrive. Yes, he may often say things that shock even the most jaded. But the majority of the country does not begrudge him the incessant use of his soapbox. Au contraire, we appreciate the transparency of his leadership style. Perhaps a Freedom of Information law may no longer be necessary. All we need do is await the morsels that the President will inevitably let slip.
One theme that keeps recurring is his preoccupation with the Martial Law power. Even before he was elected, he made no secret that he was prepared to do what had to be done to combat the triple scourge of illegal drugs, criminality and corruption. Mainstays in his stump speeches and interviews were the concepts of Martial Law and Revolutionary government.
Martial Law was one of his first trial balloons when already in Malacanang. He was prepared to resort to it if necessary to win the drug war. Of course, when reminded that the grounds for the declaration were limited to invasion and rebellion and only when public safety required it, the idea was shot down.
But of late, he seems to be returning to the theme with alarming frequency. He publicly admits that the military cannot be used to augment what is essentially police action against the narco-criminals. Nevertheless, he has insisted on keeping the concept as an active topic of public discourse.
I am the boss of you. In the context of being prepared to do whatever it takes – (different from doing whatever he is allowed to do) – he has presented a novel interpretation of the Presidential martial law power.
According to the Constitution, when a President declares Martial Law (good for 60 days only), Congress, voting jointly, is tasked within 48 hours to revoke it or to extend the declaration if requested by the President. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, may review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation or of the extension.
The President believes that this situation is ripe for conflicting interpretations. In his own words: “What happens now? Constitutional crisis. So if I were the President, sorry Supreme Court, Congress does not agree with you. I can tell Congress, hey, listen to what the Supreme Court says. Talo tayo dito. You create a stalemate. A crisis. Who gets and who benefits from it? It’s the sitting president. Why? Because I am no longer bound by any Constitution.” (TV 5 interview, Dec. 29, 2016 Malacanang)
What stalemate? With due respect, we really don’t see how there can be an impasse. The powers given to Congress and the Supreme Court are both triggered after the fact. They are review powers anchored on different jurisdictions. The decision of Congress is a political one. That of the Supreme Court, judicial. And they are not inconsistent.
The Supreme Court is not prohibited from deciding that the President’s proclamation or the Congressional extension of the same had no factual basis. The Court may, for example, decide that there was no invasion or rebellion but only lawlessness brought about by the drug war. Congress, on the other hand, is not precluded from later revoking the Presidential martial law proclamation even if the Supreme Court were to first recognize the sufficiency of its factual basis.
This is what the Constitution provides. This is what should be followed.
High anxiety. The true crisis scenario would be if the President were to truly believe that he is no longer bound by the Constitution. In the context of his readiness to do what is necessary, and in light of his announcements that we would not think twice about declaring a revolutionary government, I think now is when we should start to worry.
Statements like these, though they may be defensive reactions and though clearly coming from good intentions, can be as dangerous as the threats they respond to. They may be welcomed with applause by the adoring throng but how does this play out in the minds of the outside world?
Our strength as a nation still lies in the strength of our Constitution. Again, in the President’s own words, the Constitution is what unites us as a people. Any disparagement of the instrument or of its provisions, specially when coming from the very officials tasked and sworn to uphold it, succeeds only in weakening its foundations. A Constitution diminished is a Nation diminished. Everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten? If the President scored big with his kitchen and
kulambo diplomacy during the state visit of Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, could Congress be far behind? It seems that the legislative equivalent “out of the box” solution to its own issues is to throw decorum to the wind. A school yard fight trumps a parliamentary debate. Call it machismo diplomacy.
The iconic Congressional spice boys seem to have been cornering the market in setting the right example for our impressionable youth. First, it was Rep. Ace Barbers in the House of Representatives who eschewed the Robert’s Rules for the Marquess of Queensberry Rules with fellow Surigao Congressman Butch Pichay. This was followed, just this week, by Senator Migz Zubiri who responded to Senator Sonny Trillanes goading with an arnis challenge. Only Sen. Manny Paquiao, who could knock out the entire Senate, came out with pogi points as the warrior turned peacemaker.
Speaking of weakened foundations, the antics of our elected legislators make us pine for the days when issues, however contentious, were resolved with dignity and decency in the august halls of our House and Senate. To budding legislators, local and national; to students of law and government; forensic and debate society members, I would recommend a visit to the pages of the Congressional Record, the Record of the Senate or of the Constitutional Conventions. Be enthralled by the countless ways one could argue his cause without once having to raise your voice or sound offensive. Take the time to relive how debates are handled by gentlemen of the finest order.