Though expressed in different ways, both President Rodrigo Duterte and Vice President Leni Robredo have this habit of speech that simply begs the application of some hermeneutic skills, if not deconstruction.
The President has on many occasions engaged in what can be construed as incoherent ramblings with incomplete sentences and with a kind of prose and a choice of words that require some skills to decode. This is why he is prone to misinterpretation, and often requires presidential spokesman Salvador Panelo or his cabinet officials to elaborate, interpret or sometimes contradict or negate. President Duterte’s oral skills are characteristic of someone who thinks aloud. His speech is what people who are used to conversing with friends over bottles of beer or gin can easily relate to. And this is why despite the seeming incoherence, there is an air of familiarity with the masses, which is made even more familiar by the intermittent cursing and vulgarity.
Leni Robredo’s manner of speaking is, however, a totally different matter. The Filipino language is such a beautiful way to express ideas, but it seems that it gets murdered every time Robredo uses it. She has this habit of turning what appears to be logical arguments into inane and empty rhetoric. While President Duterte’s incoherent ramblings appear to be a result of a tendency to think aloud, Robredo’s incoherence appears to be emanating from what many allege as the absence of thought. And it could even be fatal to statements that otherwise make sense but lose their logic and turn into inanities the moment she utters them, like what happened to the feminist advocacy statement that rape exists because of rapists.
But what is even worse is when Duterte and Robredo appear irrational not because of how they say things, but of what they actually say.
Recently, the President threatened to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and declare what he labeled as a “revolutionary war.”
The suspension of the privilege of the writ is a prerogative of the President as provided in the 1987 Constitution, under Section 18 of Article VII, where he can do so “in case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.”
Under the Constitution, and as Commander-in-Chief the President can also call the Armed Forces whenever it becomes necessary to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. He can also, aside from suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, declare martial law. However, both the suspension of the privilege of the writ and the declaration of martial law are subject to review and concurrence by Congress, and can be elevated to the Supreme Court on issues of presence or absence of factual basis.
However, there is no construct in political science where a sitting president declares a “revolutionary war.” He is free to call his campaign against crime and drugs as “wars” but they would be mere labels designed for effect, in the same manner that even civil society activists refer to a war against poverty or environmental destruction.
After all, the only wars that are formally declared are against other countries, for which it is Congress that has the power and not the president. Civil wars are not formally declared, but they could be outcomes of a declaration of hostilities by rebel forces against the government.
Governments do not declare war against its own people, but simply deploy their monopoly over the legitimate use of violence against rebel forces and enemies of the state. If this is what the President refers to, then it would be perfectly within the bounds of the Constitution as provided in Section 18 of Article VII.
But what the President cannot declare is a revolutionary war, simply because it is not the state that initiates a revolution. What he can mount is a palace coup, and oust his own constitutional government, after which he can declare a revolutionary government. This is no longer a constitutional process since it effectively deposes the Constitution.
However, while the President’s irrational utterance may just be based on his lack of familiarity with the academic jargon used by political scientists to refer to types of political violence, the irrationality of Robredo is worse. It emanates from a fundamental ignorance of what an extra-constitutional process implies.
Robredo expressed her readiness to take over the reins of power in Malacañang if and when the President declares a revolutionary government, because she thinks it is her mandate as Vice President. This is evidence no longer just of an unfamiliarity with the proper jargon, but goes deeper and reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the concept of a revolutionary government and its implications on political order.
Robredo and her cabal of lawyer friends like Romy Macalintal and Florin Hilbay must be told. Constitutional succession no longer exists in the event that a revolutionary government is installed. The basis of the legitimacy of rule is no longer the Constitution but whoever wields the power to mobilize arms and exact compliance from the people. They should be reminded that this is exactly what enabled Cory Aquino, and not Arturo Tolentino who was the legitimate vice president at the time, to become president in 1986 after Ferdinand Marcos was ousted by a coup led by Juan Ponce Enrile and Fidel Ramos.
If Robredo wants to become president should Duterte declare a revolutionary government, then she and her allies have to wage a countercoup. However, should they succeed, she must realize that she will also ascend to the post in an extra-constitutional manner. But then again, this is something that Robredo, who evidently lacks understanding of the nature and consequences of an extra-constitutional political transition, would find hard to comprehend.
https://www.manilatimes.net/presidential-ramblings-vice-presidential-ignorance/537587/
https://www.manilatimes.net/presidential-ramblings-vice-presidential-ignorance/537587/
No comments:
Post a Comment