What is wrong when the President speaks?
Published Nov 2, 2018 12:05 am
PAPER VIEW
By ATTY. MEL STA. MARIA
Atty. Mel Sta. Maria
President Duterte recently said that he will place the Bureau of Customs (BOC) under military control. This violates the Constitution which provides that “no member of the armed forces in the active service shall, at any time, be appointed or designated in any capacity to a civilian position in the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations or any of their subsidiaries.” The word “no” signifies its proscriptive nature while “shall” highlights the constitution’s imperative command. The Civil Code provides that “acts executed against the provisions of mandatory and prohibitory laws shall be void.” The President, being a lawyer, knows this and yet he desires to do it.
President Duterte’s Proclamation Number 752 declared Trillanes’ amnesty null and void and ordered his arrest. Again this offends the Constitution. Only the Supreme Court can declare the official acts of the President and Congress --- such as an amnesty --- null and void. And the President cannot order the arrest of anyone, much more a senator of the republic, without a warrant. To do so is fundamentally ultra vires.
Early on in his administration, referring to the Constitution, President Duterte said in a meeting with the military on June 28, 2017: "Wala na 'yang papel, papel… Do not give me that piece of paper. It doesn't mean anything to me at all." Does this reflect his mind-set underpinning his administration such that we should not anymore be surprised but nevertheless be vigilant about?
Also, President Duterte, in his June 30, 2016, inaugural address, declared that “on the international front and community of nations…..the Republic of the Philippines will honor treaties and international obligations.” Within two years, he announced the country’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the treaty creating the International Criminal Court (ICC). And he did so not in consideration of a high public interest concern, but apparently for personal reasons as formal requests had been filed to investigate the extrajudicial killings in the Philippines under his watch and to ultimately hale him into ICC.
Then, President Duterte said on June 14, 2018: “My directive is ‘pag mag-istambay-istambay, sabihin niyo, ‘Umuwi kayo. Pag ‘di kayo umuwi, ihatid ko kayo don sa opisina ni ano don, Pasig. Ako na ang bahala, ilagay mo lang diyan. Talian mo ‘yung kamay pati bin–ihulog mo diyan sa ano.” He continues: “Tignan ‘nyo may maglakad pa ba na – eh ngayon, sabi ko sa pulis, ‘Pikapin mo.” Clarification was made by lower officials that criminals were the subjects of the arrest. But the problem is that the presidential directive clearly referred to any person standing idly in a public place. This, after loitering has been decriminalized under the Revised Penal Code.
Regarding extra-judicial killings, every time President Duterte makes his usual “kill-you” declarations, he conveys a deadly message discordant with the rule of law. No one in the Philippines can order death as it is prohibited. Misinterpreted to their extreme, the declarations may be taken as pandering to the dark side of rogue Philippine National Police officers, to exterminate addicts. And as to human rights activists who criticized him, he warned: “I’ll kill you along with drug addicts, I’ll decapitate you”. By themselves, these are gutter-threats.
And then remember when the President gave a misogynist instruction to the soldiers not to kill women rebels but only shoot their vagina? Former spokesperson Harry Roque, defending the President, said: “I have been saying again and again, do not take the president literally but take him seriously.”
The problem with the President is that his vulgarity erases whatever good intentions his pronouncements intend to convey. And so the questions are: Why should the president subject the Filipino people to his rigmarole? Why should it always be the people’s burden to understand him? If what he says is not what he means and if what he commands is legally prohibited, why should we listen to him in the first place?
Lyndon B. Johnson said that “ president's hardest task is not to do what is right, but to know what is right." Our President, when he speaks contemporaneously, often appears abrasive and imperious. That is a dangerous notion. It is the duty of every Filipino to constantly challenge the President’s words and actions, by insisting his fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law. That is the only way to help in ensuring the security of our liberties, to prevent their being trampled upon by the very people entrusted to protect them.
Atty. Mel Sta. Maria
President Duterte recently said that he will place the Bureau of Customs (BOC) under military control. This violates the Constitution which provides that “no member of the armed forces in the active service shall, at any time, be appointed or designated in any capacity to a civilian position in the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations or any of their subsidiaries.” The word “no” signifies its proscriptive nature while “shall” highlights the constitution’s imperative command. The Civil Code provides that “acts executed against the provisions of mandatory and prohibitory laws shall be void.” The President, being a lawyer, knows this and yet he desires to do it.
President Duterte’s Proclamation Number 752 declared Trillanes’ amnesty null and void and ordered his arrest. Again this offends the Constitution. Only the Supreme Court can declare the official acts of the President and Congress --- such as an amnesty --- null and void. And the President cannot order the arrest of anyone, much more a senator of the republic, without a warrant. To do so is fundamentally ultra vires.
Early on in his administration, referring to the Constitution, President Duterte said in a meeting with the military on June 28, 2017: "Wala na 'yang papel, papel… Do not give me that piece of paper. It doesn't mean anything to me at all." Does this reflect his mind-set underpinning his administration such that we should not anymore be surprised but nevertheless be vigilant about?
Also, President Duterte, in his June 30, 2016, inaugural address, declared that “on the international front and community of nations…..the Republic of the Philippines will honor treaties and international obligations.” Within two years, he announced the country’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the treaty creating the International Criminal Court (ICC). And he did so not in consideration of a high public interest concern, but apparently for personal reasons as formal requests had been filed to investigate the extrajudicial killings in the Philippines under his watch and to ultimately hale him into ICC.
Then, President Duterte said on June 14, 2018: “My directive is ‘pag mag-istambay-istambay, sabihin niyo, ‘Umuwi kayo. Pag ‘di kayo umuwi, ihatid ko kayo don sa opisina ni ano don, Pasig. Ako na ang bahala, ilagay mo lang diyan. Talian mo ‘yung kamay pati bin–ihulog mo diyan sa ano.” He continues: “Tignan ‘nyo may maglakad pa ba na – eh ngayon, sabi ko sa pulis, ‘Pikapin mo.” Clarification was made by lower officials that criminals were the subjects of the arrest. But the problem is that the presidential directive clearly referred to any person standing idly in a public place. This, after loitering has been decriminalized under the Revised Penal Code.
Regarding extra-judicial killings, every time President Duterte makes his usual “kill-you” declarations, he conveys a deadly message discordant with the rule of law. No one in the Philippines can order death as it is prohibited. Misinterpreted to their extreme, the declarations may be taken as pandering to the dark side of rogue Philippine National Police officers, to exterminate addicts. And as to human rights activists who criticized him, he warned: “I’ll kill you along with drug addicts, I’ll decapitate you”. By themselves, these are gutter-threats.
And then remember when the President gave a misogynist instruction to the soldiers not to kill women rebels but only shoot their vagina? Former spokesperson Harry Roque, defending the President, said: “I have been saying again and again, do not take the president literally but take him seriously.”
The problem with the President is that his vulgarity erases whatever good intentions his pronouncements intend to convey. And so the questions are: Why should the president subject the Filipino people to his rigmarole? Why should it always be the people’s burden to understand him? If what he says is not what he means and if what he commands is legally prohibited, why should we listen to him in the first place?
Lyndon B. Johnson said that “ president's hardest task is not to do what is right, but to know what is right." Our President, when he speaks contemporaneously, often appears abrasive and imperious. That is a dangerous notion. It is the duty of every Filipino to constantly challenge the President’s words and actions, by insisting his fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law. That is the only way to help in ensuring the security of our liberties, to prevent their being trampled upon by the very people entrusted to protect them.