THE LEGAL FRONT
(Part I)
Atty. Arturo D. Brion, Ll.B, Ll.M.
Much has been aired and written on the standards to apply in choosing our new President. The simplest (and perhaps the most authoritative) could be those drawn from our Constitution’s direct demands, from the roles the President is defined to play, and from the problems or areas he is assigned to address.
The Philippine government is composed of three co-equal branches – the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. Among them, the Executive or the presidential branch is operationally the primus inter pares – the first among equals. At its pinnacle is one person – the President – while the Legislature and the Judiciary are collegial bodies. The President’s status is also unique as Head of State, Head of Government and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces (Article VII, read in relation with Articles VI and VIII.)
With this status, the Presidency stands as the most coveted position among those defined in the Constitution. As the highest public official, the presidency should answer to the Constitution’s primary demand on its public officers. In our Charter’s own words - “A public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. (Article XI, Section 1)
By design, the presidency can only be given at any one time to one person chosen by the people. As defined by the roles and responsibilities he carries under Article VI and as mentioned in related provisions of our Constitution, he must have the integrity, competence, diplomatic skills, political courage, love of country, loyalty and the spirit of sacrifice to meet the position’s high standards and demands.
The first responsibility, of the many that the Constitution assigns (Article II, Section 3) is the protection of the integrity our national territory, as defined under our Charter’s Article 1. This territory is now at risk in the West Philippine Sea due to the Republic of China’s claims and intrusions. President Duterte has taken a unique and nimble stance, consistent with our character as a small country and geared to gain maximum benefit and flexibility for our interests.
The problem – essentially rooted in the intruder’s greed - is now tossed and turned by the complexities of international law, geopolitics, and armed might. With President Duterte on the way out and given this problem’s extent and sensitivity, the question for the electorate is: to whom should the country entrust this enormous responsibility from among the present candidates?
Another equally pressing problem in terms of severity is our acute need for social justice that, for historical reasons, has brought with it massive inequality and widespread poverty in our society. (Article II, Sections9 &10; Article XIII). Hand in hand, and almost at par with this problem, is the pervasive corruption in our midst, which has permeated our public service at all levels (and even the private sector) and has become an underlying root of the society-wide injustice we witness today.
These problems boil down to a question of trust, no less, as we need a leader who can rally as many of our people to our common cause and lead them to decisively act on the lack of justice and lack of integrity in wide and diverse areas of our national life.
Justice must be delivered, not to a select few as has had happened in the past, but across society, to rich and poor alike and to all areas, rural and urban, so that the effect would be palpable nationwide. The corrupt, particularly in the public service must be weeded out at all levels, preferably starting from the highest in order to send the strongest signals to everyone. Only through society-wide efforts can justice be done and integrity restored across the society that we seek to improve.
So far, President Duterte has not proven to be the unanimous model to reach out widely across society; he has many strong points (among them his decisiveness)but he suffers as well from counterpart deficiencies (being blunt and outspoken) that have turned off some sectors of society.
Yet, his acceptability shows the highest survey rating ever – 60 percent satisfaction rate– of an outgoing President. This is the kind of acceptability that our next President must strive for, replicate, and improve on, if he/she is to really lead our people in widely delivering justice and implanting integrity across our land.
If justice will be sought with fervor society-wide, so must it also be sought at the individual level. The Constitution defines this kind of justice in terms of human rights (Article XIII). President Duterte’s record in this regard is likewise not exemplary given the extrajudicial killing charges that no less than the ICC has been pining to pin on him.
Without going into the merits or demerits of the ICC’s position, we should perhaps view the matter dispassionately given the gravity of the situation that confronted the President, the stakes and risk of state failure involved, and the results he has obtained – effectively curbing the drug menace at the street level. Our next President should broaden and spread this result while observing the protections the Constitution commands.
I do not hereby seek or provide an excuse for what might have happened in the past, but our drug problem should perhaps be viewed and considered from the way it affects people’s lives – a worsening and spreading national problem, focused at the barangay and local levels, and affecting the poorest in our society.
In any case, our choice for the next President should show an abundance of concern for human rights and keen sensitivity to those with less in life, to ensure that the justice we aim for shall prevail both at the societal and at the individual levels.
I shall provide further perspectives in my coming articles.