PNoy government: A dictatorship in the making or democracy in action

 

By Raïssa Robles

In recent days, President Benigno Aquino III has been likened to a monarch, dictator Ferdinand Marcos, Fidel Castro and even Hitler.

How did PNoy – long tagged as a “Retard”,  “Abnoy” and “malambot” suddenly transition into an evil super-brained bad-ass who’s supposed to be “smarter than Marcos”?

Listen to how Noynoy critic Senator Joker Arroyo puts it. He told reporters:

The way I look at it, Noynoy is smarter than Marcos because Marcos had to issue Proclamation No. 1081 to usher in martial law. Noy doesn’t have to do anything except to muscle in on everyone.

Marcos used poverty and communism as his excuse to commit abuses. We have a one-man government now since Noy has subjugated the House and is on his way to doing so to the judiciary.

 

Sen. Joker’s statements made me wonder why he had such a drastic change of mind on what a Philippine president can do and cannot do.

When his chief benefactress Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was President, Sen. Joker kept his silence when she “subjugated” the House into blocking all the impeachment complaints against her. Sen. Joker also kept silent when Mrs Arroyo bent the Judiciary to do her will in several instances. Perhaps he was practicing that secret martial arts style called “The Sleeping Dragon.”

The statements of Sen. Joker and other Arroyo allies have really made me wonder just how the Executive Branch is supposed to relate  to the other two branches of government – Congress and Judiciary – no matter who the sitting President is. And where the impeachment of a Supreme Court Chief Justice fits in all this.

Let’s listen to what the man on the spot, Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona, has to say. In a recent speech, following his impeachment by the House of Representatives dominated by PNoy’s Liberal Party,  Corona implied that what Aquino did to him was evil:

At kung sakaling magtagumpay ang impeachment na ito laban sa akin, ano sa palagay ninyo ang mangyayari? Simple lang po mga mahal kong mga kababayan — kay Ginoong Aquino na ang gabinete, kontrolado na niya ang kongreso, at hawak na niya ang Korte Suprema. Paulit-ulit na lang nilang isinisigaw ang checks and balances ng three co-equal branches of government, ngunit ang kanilang mga pagkilos ay patungo sa pagsakop sa buong sistema at kapangyarihan ng pamahalaan. Itong mga itinatanim niyang gawain ay siguradong mamumunga lamang ng isang diktadura; isang diktadura na nagmula sa paglilinlang at paglalason sa pag-iisip ng ating mga kababayan.

In other words, Corona implied it was very wrong for PNoy to control Congress. And should PNoy succeed in booting him out, Corona warned PNoy would end up controlling the judiciary as well – and that would result in a dictatorship.

Corona as well as other lawyers have also raised an important question regarding the impeachment charges against him. They said rulings by SC members on cases cannot ever be questioned because the Supreme Court IS the final arbiter on the Constitution.

In other words, how can a member of the highest court violate the Constitution when he is supposed to be THE final authority on the Constitution?

If that is so, why then did our Constitution specify “culpable violation of the Constitution” as one of the grounds for impeaching an SC justice?

When and how does an SC justice seriously violate the Constitution he has vowed to protect?

Corona for obvious reasons hasn’t explained the circumstances that would cause a violation.

No one has explained how our 3 gov’t branches ought to interact

We have recently been reminded by constitutional experts that the Presidency, Congress and Judiciary are separate, co-equal bodies independent of each other.

What they have not explained to the public during this brewing controversy is how the President is supposed to interact with the other two branches of government – within the bounds of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

I personally witnessed such inter-action when the Senate reconvened in 1987 after a 15-year absence due to Marcos’ Martial Law. The first Senate President Jovito Salonga described relations between the Senate and the Presidency as one of “critical collaboration”.

This was demonstrated when the Senate refused to extend the Military Bases Agreement with the United States despite pleas from then President Corazon Aquino.

When I started covering the Senate in 1987, my law professor-dad handed me a really old book which he said would help me understand the way our presidential form of government is supposed to work. Sen. Joker knew my dad — they defended We Forum publisher Joe Burgos together.

My father told me when he handed me the book that while certain powers of the Presidency had been cut somewhat and certain powers added to the Judiciary and Congress, relations among the three branches of government had reverted back to how they were before 1972.

The book is called The Republic in Action and was written by one of the foremost Constitutionalists then – Senator Arturo Tolentino. The interesting thing about this book published in 1962 was that Tolentino wrote it for high school students, not for law students or lawyers.

Tolentino wanted people like you and me to understand how our government works.

Ours is a representative democracy

Tolentino began by using the Greek philosopher Aristotle’s classification of three kinds of governance – the one-man rule or monarchy; the rule by a single class or a few persons which Tolentino called an “aristocracy or oligarchy”; and thirdly, the rule by the people themselves or a democracy.

Tolentino further explained there were two types of democracy. First is a direct or pure one where the people governed themselves directly (such as in Switzerland and ancient Greece). Second is a “representative democracy” like the Philippines where citizens are represented by those they elect.

Tolentino added that:

When a person seizes the powers of government and ignores the voice of the people or of their representatives, the government is converted into a dictatorship. If the supreme concern of such a dictatorship is the welfare of the state as an entity distinct and apart from the people, its government becomes a totalitarian government.

I know Tolentino’s explanation sounds very simplistic to lawyers and political scientists. But I think it suffices for quickly understanding what a democracy is all about.

Even the first declaration of principle in our 1987 Constitution states:

The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.

How do we now reconcile this concept of sovereignty residing in the people with the warning aired by Fr. Joaquin Bernas  following reports that the surveys seemed to support PNoy’s moves?

Bernas, who helped draft our present Constitution, cautioned that “you cannot always trust what the populace is supporting.”

Why our type of government is called presidential

From our Civics or Social Studies classes, many of us have learned the two types of government – the presidential and the parliamentary. Fr. Bernas and the other constitutional framers chose to revive the presidential form where the government practically revolves around an office occupied by one individual with wide powers – the Presidency.

So wide are the powers, Tolentino said, that –

The President exerts a tremendous influence in legislation.

In other words, on Congress, a co-equal branch of government.  The President’s influence on Congress extends beyond legislation and includes other functions   such as its power to impeach. Tolentino described impeachment as Congress’ exercise of “its judicial function.”

Congress has the power to impeach a President and any member of the SC.

In turn, the President has the power to influence Congress in various ways – which are merely implied in the Constitution. Tolentino  explained that one way is through :

The operation of the party system (which) provides another method by which the President can influence legislation. This method is specially useful in the case of measures recommended by him, or administration measures. The President is usually the titular head of the party in power. This party controls both houses of Congress, usually, and the leaders of Congress belong to the same party. The President can enlist the help of the legislative leaders to push through administration measures.

Given Tolentino’s explanation, what did CJ Corona mean when he said –

kay Ginoong Aquino na ang gabinete, kontrolado na niya ang kongreso….

Does this mean it is unconstitutional for PNoy – or any President for that matter – to “control” Congress through his political party mates? Or is this really how a President can effectively govern?

Tolentino also disclosed that:

If there is some difficulty for the legislative leaders alone to obtain approval of administration measures, then the President may call the members of Congress who belong to his party to a meeting, known as party caucus. In such meeting, he appeals to them and convinces them to support the administration measures. If the party caucus decides that such measures should be passed, the majority members of the Congress vote for their approval….Because of party discipline, usually none of the majority members votes against the decision of the party caucus.

CJ Corona’s impeachment by Congress was secretly decided in a Liberal Party caucus. But the opposition party allied with Mrs Arroyo branded that as a very bad thing to do. Even if they often decided political moves that way, too.

It seems though from Tolentino’s explanation that this is to be considered normal practice in our kind of presidential form of government.

One more thing. The Liberal Party-led House leadership decided to strip the committee chairmanship from a member who did not vote along party lines in the impeachment. Arroyo’s allies branded that as turning Congress into PNoy’s rubber stamp. But Tolentino said it was part of cracking the party whip.

The same thing also happened in 2005 following the embarrassing revelations on the “Hello Garci” wiretapped tapes where a voice that sounded like Mrs Arroyo asked a poll official whether she would win the 2004 elections by over a million votes.

Administration allies who demanded Arroyo’s resignation were also stripped of their House positions.

Interestingly, Tolentino raised another form of “legal” persuasion that any Philippine President has at his disposal – the “pork barrel”. Tolentino explained:

To a great extent, the influence of the President in lawmaking will depend upon his personal qualities as a leader. He can confer individually with members of Congress and persuade them to vote for an administration measure. He may influence them by the use of patronage. This means that he may give some favor or concession to a member of Congress, by the appointment of a recommendee of that member to some position in the government. He may also influence him by the release of funds for the construction of some projects sponsored by such member.

Pork barrel is a dirty word to many Filipinos. I don’t like pork barrel myself because it often ends up in the lawmaker’s pocket. When I was covering the Senate, then Senator Vicente Paterno explained to me how he reconciled himself with using pork barrel. He said that used properly, it is “the democratization of patronage.”

Pork barrel is supposed to be a way for the most far-flung districts in the country to get hold of extra funds from the national government.

In the case of Corona’s speedy impeachment, House Minority Floorleader Edcel Lagman claimed that lawmakers were blackmailed into supporting it because they were threatened with or they feared the loss of their pork barrel.

To the public, that smacked of bribery.

But if you really take a pragmatic look at it, pork barrel is part of the wheeling and dealing in Congress. Unless the Supreme Court rules it is unconstitutional.

Probably one of the canniest politicians to use pork barrel was Mrs Arroyo. However, it seems Arroyo’s allies expect PNoy not to use it because of his Matuwid na Daan.

My hubby Alan and I were debating what the difference was in Arroyo’s handing out cold cash (you remember, to Pampanga Governor Ed Panlilio) and Aquino’s use of pork barrel. He pointed out to me that in Arroyo’s case, it was intended to directly benefit her because she was saving herself from being ousted from the presidency. And it was in cash with no issued receipt.

Aside from trying to influence Congress to do his bidding, Tolentino said:

The President may resort to public opinion. This is known as bringing the issue to the people. In speeches and newspaper statements, he may tell the people the reasons for his desire to have an administration measure enacted. He may induce the people to express their views on the measure. If public opinon is strongly in favor of the President’s stand, the members of Congress may ultimately approve the measure.

This is precisely what PNoy is doing now with Corona’s impeachment case. However, Fr. Bernas said he found PNoy’s speeches disturbing because

In his speeches, he sounds like Fidel Castro.

After PNoy gave a speech lambasting Corona to his face and Corona declined to react, Bernas praised Corona because

He does not go down to the level of the president’s ranting.

Last week, though, Corona branded PNoy “greedy”, a “dictator” and “a king”.

Hmmm. Is that tantamount to an unofficial judicial ruling on the powers of  the presidency under the present Constitution?

Personally, I’m not bothered by what’s happening because I’ve seen much, much worse. I’m also inclined to believe that when you’re doing government spring-cleaning, you’re bound to let a lot of dust fly.

If there is any good that Corona’s impeachment has done so far, it is to make Filipinos like me think about democracy.

What exactly is a democracy? Is what is happening part of a vibrant democracy? Or are we really experiencing what Corona warned is a “creeping dictatorship?”

Is this a dictatorship or is this democracy,  functioning the way it’s supposed to?

_______________________________________

Read Chief Justice Renato Corona’s post-impeachment speech delivered on December 16, 2011:

AKO ANG UNANG TAGAPAGTANGGOL NG HUSTISYA

Isang mainit at mapagpalayang hapon po sa ating lahat!

Tunay na hustisya, kadakilaan ng Kataastaasang Hukuman, at kalayaan ng hudikatura, tatlo pong prinsipyo na nagbibigay sa akin – sa ating lahat – ng lakas at tapang na harapin ang hamon at pagsubok na bunga ng masamang pulitika.

HINDI PO TAYO PAPAYAG NA LAPASTANGANIN AT ALIPUSTAHIN ANG DEMOKRASYA, AT ANG KORTE SUPREMA!

Sa isang iglap, nasampahan po ako ng isang impeachment complaint ng mababang kapulungan na kontrolado ng Liberal Party ni Ginoong Aquino at ng kanyang mga kaalyado. Sa sobrang bilis, parang wala po yatang nakaintindi o nakabasa man lang ng halos animnapung pahinang reklamo o habla. Isang

daan, walumpu’t walong kinatawan ang basta na lamang lumagda rito para isulong ang aking impeachment. Kinikilala natin ang proseso ng Saligang Batas para sa mga reklamo laban sa mga miyembro ng Korte Suprema. Ngunit ang hindi natin kinikilala ay ang pag-abuso ng kapangyarihan at proseso para samantalahin ang lahat ng paraan, makapagtalaga lamang sila ng sarili nilang mga mahistrado sa Korte Suprema.

Itong impeachment ay dala ng kasakiman na magkaroon ng isang Korte Suprema na kayang diktahan, na nakukuha sa tingin, at magkakandarapang ipatupad ang kanilang bawat hiling.

Tila yata’y napipikon at hindi sila makapagtalaga ng kanilang punong mahistrado kung susundin ang ating umiiral na Saligang Batas. Kaya pati ang inyong lingkod, hadlang daw sa kaunlaran ng bayan at pagpapatupad ng mga ipinangako sa kampanya!

Pasadahan po natin ang mga walang katuturang paratang ng ating mga magigiting na mambabatas. Walo (8) po ang hinain na paratang laban sa akin. Kaagad, makikitang dalawang uri ang bintang na nilalaman nito: sa isang banda, ‘yung mga reklamong tumutukoy sa mga personal kong kilos, at sa kabilang banda naman, ang mga reklamo na tumutukoy sa mga opisyal na pagkilos o hatol ng Korte Suprema.

Mariin kong itinatanggi ang mga bintang na may katiwalian sa mga pansarili kong kilos. Hindi po totoo ang sinasabing ayaw ko raw ilabas ang aking Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth. Ito’y isang dokumentong sinusumite ko taun-taon ng walang patid. Malaking kasinungalingan ang paratang na ito.

Ako raw po ay isang midnight appointee.Dapat raw po, hindi ko tinanggap ang paghirang sa akin. Bakit po ba, para si Ginoong Aquino ang makapagtalaga ng kaniyang sariling chief justice na hawak niya sa leeg? Mapapa-iling ka talaga. Ang pagtatalaga sa inyong lingkod ay dumaan sa isang masusing proseso na ayon sa ating Saligang Batas. Kasama po dito ang proseso ng Judicial and Bar Council na noon ay pinangungunahan ng dating Punong Mahistrado Reynato Puno. Matagal na po itong pinagpasyahan ng Korte Suprema. Matagal nang tapos ito. Kung may reklamo man sila sa hatol ng Korte Suprema, sana ay noon pa, ipinaglaban na nila.

Binubuhay ito para painitin ang damdamin ng ating mga kababayan at mawalaan tayo ng tiwala sa Korte Suprema at hudikatura. Di po ba’t may kasabihan na “ang isang kasinungalingan, kapag inulit ng inulit, pagtagal, ay siyang tinatanggap bilang katotohanan?” Paano po naman naging kasalanan ang pagtanggap ng isang dakilang karangalan tulad nito? Ito ay isa lamang pong paninira ng aking katapatan sa katungkulan, kasama na po ang puri at dangal ng Kataas taasang Hukuman.

Nguni’t ang kasukdulan ng pambabastos, sa aking pananaw, ay ang pagdawit ng aking maybahay sa reklamong ito. Baka akala nila na sa ganitong paraan ako po’y madaling susuko. Mapalad po ako na mayroon akong isang mabait at matatag na kasama sa buhay, na siya ring pinagkukunan ko ng lakas at inspirasyon. Mahal na mahal kita, Tina.

Walang katotohan ang kanilang mga paratang – puro kasinungalingan. At patutunayan namin na ito ay isang pagblackmail lamang. Lingid po yata sa kanilang kaalaman na si Ginang Corona ay una pang naitalaga bago ako naging mahistrado. Bakit, hindi po ba dito sa kasalukuyang administrasyon, mayroong isang mag-asawa, kasama ang kanilang mga anak, na may matataas na puwesto?

Ang mga natitirang paratang ay ukol naman sa mga pasiya at iba pang matagal nang patakaran ng Korte Suprema. Alalahanin po natin na ayon sa ating Saligang Batas, ang Korte Suprema ay binubuo ng isang punong mahistrado at labing-apat na katulong na mahistrado. Mayroon po lamang kaming tigiisang boto, at ito po ay pantay-pantay. Ang aking boto ay kapareho lamang ng boto ng pinakahuling naitalagang mahistrado. Ang pwersa at bisa ng aking pananaw ay kapantay lamang ng pwersa at bisa ng pananaw ng kahit sino mang mahistrado. Pantay-pantay po kaming lahat dito.

At sa mga isyu na sinasabi nilang kaugnay sa dating pangulo, wala po kaming kinakatigan dito sa hukumang ito. Ang aming pasiya ay pasiya ng buong Korte Suprema at resulta ng mga indibidwal na opinyon. Ang opinyon ng isang mahistrado ay hindi desisyon ng Korte Suprema. Kahit sinumang abogado ay magsasabi sa inyo na hindi po pwedeng yapakyapakan ang karapatan ng sinuman sa ilalim ng Saligang Batas, habang hindi mo pa napapatunayan na siya ay nagkasala. May mandato ang korte na ipagtanggol higit sa lahat ang karapatang pang-tao ng indibidwal kontra sa labis-labis na kapangyarihan ng pamahalaan, lalong-lalo pa kung wala pang naisasampang kaso. Matagal na itong prinsipio at hindi na kailangang idebate. Ito ang tinatawag na PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE and RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS.

Isampa ang tamang kaso sa loob ng wastong oras, na may tamang ebidensya, para walang magawa ang korte kung di hatulan at ipakulong ang nagkasala sa lipunan. Panagutin natin ang dapat managot, pero idaan natin sa wasto at tamang proseso sa ilalim ng Saligang Batas. Ano po ba ang napakahirap intindihin sa bagay na ito?

Ibang-iba po ang palakad sa gabinete, sapagkat doon, lahat ng miyembro ay mga alalay, alagad at utusan ng pangulo. Sa loob ng gabinete, ang utos ng hari, hindi nababali. Dito po sa Korte Suprema, ang pananaw ng punong mahistrado ay isa lamang. Gaya nga ng sinabi ko, kami ay patas at pare-pareho lamang na nagbibigay halaga at respeto sa opinyon ng bawat isa. Wala po kaming tungkulin at balak na maging sunod-sunuran sa isa’t-isa.

Ngayon, ipagpalagay na natin na malimit kasama ko ang mayorya sa botohan, maari ba namang magmistulang pagkampi ito, samantalang nakararami kaming sumasangayon sa isang pananaw? Kasalanan po ba na ako’y kasapi ng mayorya ng Korte sa iilang mga kaso? Marami din naman pong kaso na nasa menorya ako sapagka’t natalo sa botohan ang aming pananaw. Ito ang magpapatunay na walang nagdidikta ng boto dito sa Korte Suprema.

Kaya nga po dito natin makikita ang likas na talino at sadyang makatarungan na sistema ng hustisya sa ating saligang batas: labing-lima po kami sa Korte Suprema, upang masiguro na mangibabaw ang pananaw ng mas nakakarami. Hindi maaring magtagumpay ang pananaw ng nag-iisang mahistrado.

Samakatuwid, itong mga paratang ng pagkiling laban sa akin ay bunga lamang ng malisya at kathang-isip. Malamang, umaasa ang mga kalaban ng Korte, na ako at ang ibang 14 miyembro na di nila kayang diktahan, ay magbibitiw sa tungkulin.

At kung sakaling magtagumpay ang impeachment na ito laban sa akin, ano sa palagay ninyo ang mangyayari? Simple lang po mga mahal kong mga kababayan — kay Ginoong Aquino na ang gabinete, kontrolado na niya ang kongreso, at hawak na niya ang Korte Suprema. Paulit-ulit nalang nilang isinisigaw ang checks and balances ng three co-equal branches of government, ngunit ang kanilang mga pagkilos ay patungo sa pagsakop sa buong sistema at kapangyarihan ng pamahalaan. Itong mga itinatanim niyang gawain ay siguradong mamumunga lamang ng isang diktadura; isang diktadura na nagmula sa paglilinlang at paglalason sa pag-iisip ng ating mga kababayan.

At ngayon, sasabihin ko po sa kanilang lahat: ako’y tumututol sa walang-tigil na pangaalipusta, pangduduro at pananakot. Ako’y tumututol sa dahan-dahang binubuong diktadura ni Pangulong Benigno Simeon Aquino III.

Kahapon lamang, iginigiit ng palasyo na hindi raw ang Korte Suprema o hudikatura, at ako lang daw, ang tinitira dito sa impeachment. Ito po’y malaking kasinungalingan, dahil hindi ako naniniwala na si Renato Corona lang ang tumututol sa diktadura. Walang katotohanan na si Renato Corona lamang ang gusto nilang tanggalin sa Korte Suprema. Naniniwala po ako na tayong lahat ang kinakalaban, pati na ang mga walang-malay nilang tagahanga. Sapagkat ang tunay na layunin ay wasakin ang hudikatura, wasakin ang ating demokrasya, at pairalin ang utos ng mahal na hari. Ito ang patutunguhan ng baluktot na “Daang Matuwid.”

Matagal na po akong nagtitimpi. Hindi ko po maintindihan kung bakit nanggigigil ng husto sa akin ang mahal nating pangulo, magmula pa po sa kanyang pagkaluklok sa pwesto.

Tuwing kami’y nagkikita, lubos kong pinararamdam na kami’y dapat mag-ugnayan, magsama at magtulungan para sa bayan.Marami po tayong problema. Nandiyan po ang mabagal na takbo ng ekonomiya, kawalan ng trabaho, kahirapan at kagutuman. Mukhang hindi po niya naintindihan.

Kamakailan lamang, tinuya na naman po tayo ng harap-harapan. Tulad ng tunay na Kristianong Batangueño, tayo po ay nagpigil, at ito po ay ating pinalampas.

WALA PO AKONG KASALANAN SA INYO, GINOONG PANGULO. WALA PO AKONG KASALANAN SA TAONG-BAYAN.

Sabi nila, sarili ko lang daw po ang nakataya dito. Ang pinaglalaban po natin dito ay ang kalayaan ng Korte Suprema, kalayaan ng hudikatura, at ang pagtanggol ng demokrasya sa ilalim ng Saligang Batas. Hindi po ako papayag na sumuko sa matinding pagtatangka na mapasailalim ng ibang sangay ng pamahalaan ang Korte Suprema. Una akong tututol. Una akong lalaban.

Ginoong Pangulo, ako po ang primus inter pares dito sa Korte Suprema. Ang ibig sabihin po nito, kung kailangan ipaglaban ang Korte Suprema, ako ang uuna.

Huwag na po nating isubo ang Korte Suprema sa ano pang pagsubok o batikos ng mga mapagsamantala. Yaman din lang na ang ipinaglalaban dito ay ang Korte Suprema at ang demokrasya, karangalan at katungkulan ko po na labanan itong impeachment para sa ating lahat. Haharapin ko nang buong tapang at talino ang mga walang basehang paratang na ito, punto por punto, sa Senado. Handanghanda akong humarap sa paglilitis.

Mga kasama, matapat kong sinasabi sa inyo, mahimbing ang tulog ko at tahimik ang aking konsyensya dahil sa pagpapatupad ng lahat ng aking mga tungkulin. Ako’y nanatiling matapat sa Panginoon, sa aking sarili, sa batas, at sa sinumang tao.

Para sa mga ngayon pa lang nakakarinig ng aking panawagan, inaanyayahan ko kayong makiisa sa amin. Ngayon pa lamang ay taospuso na ang aking pasasalamat sa inyo sa inyong pagtaguyod, pakikiisa at pagpapalakas ng aming loob.

Mga minamahal kong kababayan, sa aking pagharap sa isang mapanganib na katunggali, ang aking tanging sandigan ay ang inyong pakiki-akibat, at ang paninindigan para sa Lumikha at sa ating bayan. Buong pagkukumbaba kong hinihiling ang inyong pang-unawa, subalit higit sa lahat, hinihiling kong samahan ninyo ako sa aking laban at mission.

Muli, isang maganda at maalab na hapon po sa inyong lahat. Sana’y pagpalain po tayong lahat ng Maykapal.