A President who is never wrong

Lowdown
Jojo A. Robles

It’s what the President wants, and, by God, it’s what he’s going to get. He is, after all, President—and the President is never wrong.

President Noynoy Aquino once again showed how stubborn he can be in the past week, when he dug his heels against those protesting both his administration’s enactment of the Cybercrime Prevention Act and his appointment of former Isabela Gov. Grace Padaca to the Commission on Elections. Aquino will simply not back away from these two decisions—and there seems to be no way for him to back away from them anymore.

Aquino justified his administration’s support for Republic Act 10175, the cybercrime law by saying that he could be impeached for dereliction of duty if he does not implement a statute that has already been enacted. This is either the most stupid or the most cynical remark ever made by this President because it suggests that he can no longer do anything to prevent the implementation of the new law.

But it is also a bald-faced lie. Aquino can certainly do several things, if he is actually considering amending or repealing the law that has sparked widespread protests among Filipino netizens.

Unfortunately, significantly revising the new law—or scrapping it altogether—is not on the table. Aquino has made up his mind that there is nothing wrong with the law, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

If Aquino was so concerned that his hands would be tied once he signed RA 10175, then why did he affix his signature to the law in the first place? And even if Congress had already passed the law, could he not have exercised his power of presidential veto, if he was really concerned over the provision on online libel that so many have found obnoxious?

Of course, Aquino would not have vetoed a measure passed by Congress that he himself had wanted passed. That is the only reason why Aquino will not budge on the Cybercrime Law.

Aquino’s defense of the odious law also follows the unbelievable narrative that his spokesmen first foisted upon the citizenry, to the effect that the country needs a law to fight crime online. But this is a glib statement, because it lumps together all the other provisions of the law that no law-abiding netizen has any quarrel with, together with the only part of the statute that they find unacceptable —the broad, unconstitutional and obviously unconsidered provision on online libel.

Even if up to now, when no one can clearly say where the online libel provision really came from, Aquino has decided that there will be no amendment, no veto and no other major revisions to his pet law. And even after even his own spokesmen have agreed that the problem with RA 10175 cannot be cured by the implementing rules and regulations that will accompany it, Aquino insists that this is the proper way to go.

“Ah, basta,” he seems to say to his critics. This is the law we wanted, and this is the law they are going to get.

* * *

The case of Padaca follows a similar pattern of unconsidered inception and sloppy preparation and staff work, culminating in presidential bull-headedness in the face of obvious flaws that should have been uncovered almost every step of the way. Here was a proposed presidential appointee with a standing warrant of arrest for corruption issued last May; no one apparently told Aquino that Padaca was unfit for the position she was being considered for, if only because of her pending graft case.

Aquino appointed Padaca anyway. And when her brush with the law became common knowledge, Aquino himself put up the money for her bail from his own pocket – as if the President dipping into his inheritance for a favored appointee’s temporary freedom made everything all right.

“Ah, basta,” the hacienda heir said. Padaca will be the next appointee to the Commission on Elections, even if I have to spend my own money to make sure she doesn’t land in jail, one can almost hear Aquino say.

And Aquino once again showed his contempt for the law and legal processes by declaring that he was appointing Padaca because he believes “that she is a victim of politics and is not guilty.” What message, pray tell, is this un-presidential statement relaying to the Ombudsman?

More than likely, what happened was that Aquino was once again the victim of his stupid and spineless staff, who either did not know what effect the appointment of Padaca to the Commission on Elections would have or were too scared to say no to the wishes of the President.

The passage of RA 10175 and the appointment of Padaca are just the latest instances of a President who cannot admit to making a mistake, as if such an admission would expose him as someone who does not stay the course in the face of adversity. But isn’t it more presidential to accept that errors have been made, and that corrective measures will immediately be taken?

What’s so wrong with being mistaken on occasion? Ah, basta, this President is never wrong; only the people who perennially find fault in Aquino think he is.