Governmental oxymoron

By ALAN F. PAGUIA

The Philippines, as a former colony of the United States, and beginning sometime in 1898, continues to follow the constitutional principles upon which the American government is founded. That is essentially the theory of the Filipinos’ political history. The praxis, however, is turning out to be a dismal failure.

Why? Because of both witting and unwitting self-contradictions in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government.

1. Instead of the sovereign people being the master of government, it is the government that has become the master of the people.

2. Instead of following democracy or rule of the majority, what is being followed is the opposite of democracy or rule of the minority.

3. Instead of following the rule of law where nobody is above the law, what is being followed is the rule of force where the powerful politicians are above the law. Instead of politicians adjusting to the Constitution, it is the Constitution that is being made to adjust to the politicians.

4. Instead of those who are fittest or objectively qualified being elected or appointed to government positions, those who are not or those who are outright mediocres, provided they have the money or popularity – showbiz-wise or otherwise – are the ones who generally get elected or appointed.

5. Instead of statesmanship being the standard quality among government leaders, the same has been replaced with showmanship where illusion is substance, and substance is illusory. In the latter case, mockery is the rule where the honest are made to look dishonest, while the dishonest are made to look honest.

6. According to Filipino lawyer and hero of the struggle for national independence, Apolinario Mabini, the legislative, the executive, and judicial branches are respectively the brains, hands, and conscience of government. In other words, the brains and hands may be partisan or political, but the conscience must remain neutral or apolitical.

The brains must dictate what must be or not be done within the terms of the law. The hands implement the law and deal with what can be done. The conscience determines what must be or not be done within the terms of a just and humane society.

Can a reasonable mind honestly declare there are no serious violations of these cardinal principles in the government? The answer is NO. There are many such violations. Some are limited in scope to specific cases. Some have reached systemic proportions.

No less than the incumbent President, Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III, has described the Philippine situation so candidly, that is, that corruption in government has reached very alarming levels.

Aborted impeachment

The aborted impeachment proceedings against Merceditas Gutierrez in her capacity as Ombudsman is a glaring example of how the Filipino people are being subjected by government leaders to deception en masse. The Constitution is clear. The Ombudsman shall serve for a term of seven years without reappointment. Aniano Desierto served such term from 1995 to 2002. He was followed by Simeon Marcelo whose term under the Constitution was from 2002 to 2009. However, his tenure, or stay in office, lasted only three years when he resigned in 2005. The remaining tenure of four years was served by Gutierrez. Therefore, her tenure expired when Marcelo’s term expired by operation of law in 2009. To rule otherwise would be unconstitutional as it would allow her to serve for two terms instead of just one. Hence, the Filipino people were served the spectacle of a fake impeachment proceeding which sought to impeach someone who was no longer the Ombudsman, nor impeachable under the Constitution.

Who were the parties in the exercise? (a) The apparent anti-Arroyo complainants, (b) the lawyers in the Office of the Ombudsman who conspired with Gutierrez, (c) the Sandiganbayan justices who continued to officially recognize Gutierrez as Ombudsman after 2009, (d) the members of the House of Representatives who entertained the complaint and declared it sufficient in form and substance, (e) the Supreme Court justices who entertained the petition for certiorari filed by Gutierrez, and initially issued a status quo ante order in her favor, (f) certain senators who publicly acknowledged their looking forward to hearing the articles of impeachment, and (g) the incumbent President himself who publicly expressed his looking forward to the successful impeachment and conviction of Gutierrez. They were parties to the deception because they were ignoring the constitutional limit of Gutierrez’s tenure. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. Whatever provision there may be in the Ombudsman Act of 1989 which might be interpreted as against the constitutional limitation is obviously unconstitutional.

What is the legal significance of the fake impeachment proceedings? It covers up Gutierrez’s questionable performance of the official duties of the Ombudsman. All her official actions after 2009 were done without jurisdiction, and therefore void ab initio. They likely number in the thousands. Some she approved for indictment before the anti-graft court, the Sandiganbayan. Some she approved for outright acquittal. In other words, by going through the impeachment proceedings, she and those who must have benefited, directly or indirectly, from her illegal indictments and illegal acquittals, would no longer be questioned for such illegal actions. Why? Because the concerned government leaders have impliedly recognized her as Ombudsman even after 2009 when her official tenure and inherited term had both expired.

Lawyers’ knowledge of corruption

Many practicing lawyers often exchange personal experiences of having to deal with corruption involving judges, justices, sheriffs, clerks of court, bureaucrats, law enforcers, businessmen, fellow lawyers or other professionals, if only to keep their cases alive or active. The clients, paying or legal aid, and society in general are the ultimate losers. The political environment, instead of providing inspiration, is filled with depression, frustration, angst, and seething anger.

The Court of Appeals justices have blown whistles against each other as a result of which some have been subjected to stern disciplinary measures by the Supreme Court. It is not uncommon for practicing lawyers to share with fellow lawyers and clients empirical corruption in appellate practice. Some even mention the personal favors and amounts of cash supposedly involved (See SHADOW OF DOUBT: Probing The Supreme Court, a book by Marites Danguilan Vitug; 2010; published by Public Trust Media Group, Inc., email: admin@newsbreak.com.ph; URL: http://www.newsbreak.com.ph).

See or hear no evil

What is saddening is the people trained in the law, the press, the religious sectors, non-governmental organizations, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, associations of law schools or law students or law professors, associations of private or government lawyers, prosecutors, public attorneys, law enforcers, or judges or justices, or civil society in general, act as if they see or hear no evil. 

The way

In sum, many honest and intelligent Filipinos find themselves unable to completely believe that their supposed government is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The problem may be summarized in one word – DISHONESTY. This may be in the form of lying, cheating, and stealing in government. Consequently, the solution may also be reduced in one word – HONESTY, coupled with uncompromising determination on the part of the SOVEREIGN MAJORITY to ENFORCE the law as written, regardless of the consequences (Velasco v. Lopez, 1 Phil. 720).

This is the only way the Filipino people can fully regain their self-respect as well as the respect of the rest of humanity.