Not Among Equals

The impeachment proceeding of the Chief Justice has marvelled every ordinary intellectual and the highly-legalistic observers. Since it is viewed by the many, the main actors –the senator-judges- must conduct themselves in a manner which partakes of cold neutrality, in order to avoid the evil suspicion of being bias to one party or another. Above all, they must speak with the resemblance of possessing wisdom and philosophy considering that they have been elected at large by the Filipino people. However, there was one senator-judge who bravely declared before the honourable impeachment court and before the entire nation to the effect that the senate sitting as an impeachment court is like no other, that being so, it can pass upon any matter and invoke its authority on it, regardless of any boundaries set forth under the constitution.

In other words, he gallantly aired his conviction that the impeachment court is supreme to that of the highest court of the land. Logic and reasoning will never subscribed to such proposition. As pointed by Fr Joaquin Bernas, in his article on the PDI 01/23/12, he states in part that “Incidentally, this is not a question of who, between the Senate jury and the Supreme Court, is superior. After all, the Senate jury is no other than the same upper house of Congress. The Senate jury is not a distinct body from the Senate but is the same Senate given non-legislative authority to be exercised occasionally. The three departments of government are coequal, working in coordination with each other. When faced with a situation in which they seem to appear to be an immovable force pushing against an immovable wall, what is constitutionally demanded of them is to look for ways of working together.” The rationale, therefore, would fall on the premise that the senate is a body given by the constitution the sole authority to try and decide impeachment cases and it is not licensed to venture in an expedition to any other branch of government without the sacrifice of the doctrine of separation of powers.

In an indirect democracy such as ours, we are supposedly ruled with statesmen who are equipped with reason and wisdom. While they may commit blunders in their acts, it must not be so gross as to view them unreasonable and ignorant. Having been reposed the responsibility of representing the people, they must act with the highest mode of intellectual propriety.

Levelling the interests

Our great Republic created a body of men that possesses the privilege to represent the people in its entirety, with no other duty but to speak the words of the people through an all-embracing law. These select few continue to occupy the limited 24-seat in the Senate. But, with the onslaught of an impending impeachment trial, is it within their capacity to decide a case for the cause of justice? Or would it be another game of numbers based on their political affiliation?

The Constitution reposed before the hands of the senators the duty of removing into office an impeachable officer for betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the constitution, or other high crimes. In other words, the senators will be the grand jury who can call for the acquittal or conviction of an accused. Since they will be the judges for the fate of the accused, they must decide according to the dictates of justice and not to any promises whispered by a fanatic influential. To render a verdict, one need not possess the expertise or experience of a seasoned justice. It is only sufficient to evaluate the arguments and evidences presented, and base his judgment on the merits of the case. Needless to state, his decision must be in line with logical reasoning.

But in a country where every politician is hungry for political accommodation, where his interests requires him to secure re-election and where secret alliances  are only to be considered, there could be no fair justice for one who stands accused. As the stage is set for the impeachment trial of the Chief Justice, we are about to witness the kind of political animals this Republic has in its cage. And we must hope that the rule of law and justice will succeed; otherwise, this nation as a whole will fail.

Unfamily Portrait

As defined by the Family Code of the Philippines, marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with the law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. The strength of a family depends upon the strength of marital life. When the foundation of the family is weak the slightest wind of temptation would cause its bedrock to fall apart. But, when the bonds are strong, a storm, however mighty, would never summon the relationship into the horizon of uncertainty.

A story of marital relationship may begin with happiness, love, sincerity and passion at the early stage of their life. Nevertheless, as they venture longer into the unknown world, they succumb to realize the necessary mistake they have committed and yet find themselves into an uncompromising situation that their indifference, by character and by lust, would end by death alone. One, who suffers the non-contentment of the other spouse, may seek refuge on another’s heart. Thus, once a blissful moment in their distant past has now become a misery both of which are ought to face. No one is bound to escape the evil they sow, since by law their marriage would never be severed.

It is the highest form of ignorance to conceive the possibility of fixing the broken pieces of a couple’s marital affair. No other remedy is rightful, but the gift of the lost liberty. While the State recognizes the family as the basic unit of the society and acknowledges marriage as a social inviolable institution, it is, by force of reason, indispensable to reconsider the adoption of divorce. It is undeserving to call an entity a family where hate, violence, abuse and jealousy reign supreme. Thus, to cherish and protect the family includes the ultimate sacrifice of emancipation.

The Last Stand

It is the mandate of the State to promote the equal distribution of wealth among the Filipino people. It is, likewise, the policy of the government to give land to the landless and free the poor and the oppressed farmers from the bonds of their unyielding landlords to the effect that every Filipino farmer may enjoy the fruits of their labor. A farmer who tills the land for the rest of his life and leaves no property to his children but the fact of hard labor is a high form of social injustice. It is an injustice that strikes at the heart of our ideals and aspirations, a prolific sickness that would kill a man’s dream of pursuing happiness.

While it is true that no men are created equal in matters of material wealth and possession, the State must protect the interest of the unheard workforce, especially the farmers, by granting them what is due, in which case the gift would be the transfer of lands into their industrious hands. There is no denial that those who toil the land suffers severe physical stress, emotional trauma, psychological anxiety and, above all, moral pain because the blood and sweat they endure to cultivate the lot and harvest its fruits will only be subject to the disposal of the greedy rich. The latter’s objective is to accumulate wealth and brandish among his colleagues the digits under his account, while that of the former’s sole goal is to feed his hungry children and provide a measly platter of food before his family.

Thus, when an unimaginable unjust enrichment occurs due to this evil scheme, it is the court, who, as the last bastion of justice and equity, hails that the deprived shall receive that which he is entitled, by law and by social fairness. The decision of the Supreme Court, in ordering the distribution of lands owned and controlled by the Hacienda Luisita Incorporated to the farmers, is a manifestation of final justice which has long been overdue. 

The Elusive Flight

No less than the fundamental law of the land provides that a person shall have the free right to travel, unimpaired by any state regulation, save only in cases when the national security, public safety, or public health is imperilled. The state, then, has the exclusive authority to restrict one from the enjoyment of his free movement, particularly when his act of travel would lead to endanger the general interest of the public in matters of security and health. Thus, it can be gleaned that the right to travel is a superior right of an individual than that of the power of the state to prohibit such because it is subject to the conditions imposed by the Constitution.

The Former President’s issue of seeking medical attendance outside the Philippines has now become a classic clash between the obligation of the State to prosecute those who must face the portals of a courtroom and an individual’s right to travel for purposes of treatment. The denial of the President to grant the travel abroad is premised on the ground that FPGMA’s condition is non-life threatening. In addition, the government is apprehensive on the risk that the former president might take flight from the charges filed against her in the courts of law. It can be remembered that flight is an admission of guilt.

It is on this basis that the government impaired the right of President Arroyo to travel. One need not have the expertise of analysis and logic to understand that the impairment of the government of her right to travel was not anchored on national security, public safety, or public health. To grant her the opportunity of cure outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines will not mean the introduction of sedition, rebellion or insurrection, or the entrance of any contagious diseases into the land of the pearl of the orient. 

The Rebels' Haven

                          Laws are promulgated in order to regulate the affairs of men, to protect every individual from any injury, and, among others, to promote the general interest of the public. In other words, its concept is to maintain order and secure to every living citizens the enjoyment of their basic rights, privileges, and, as well as their fundamental freedoms. Most of the law created by the law-making body defines a crime, treats of its nature and provides for punishment. One of the law’s basic characteristics is territoriality, where it is applied in the territory over which the state has sovereignty and jurisdiction.

                         In cases where a State cannot effectively carry out its obligation to enforce the law in certain parts of its territory, it strikes an unparalleled failure on the part of the government to assert its sovereignty to every composite part of its territorial jurisdiction. It must be remembered that a law distinguishes neither place nor day for its application so long as it is effected within the territorial responsibility of the concerned state, with the end in view that no one goes unpunished for a crime committed.

                         The so called “Area of Temporary Stay” enjoyed by the Muslim insurgents is a blunder to the Philippines’ territorial integrity, as the law enforcers cannot extend the arm of the law on such areas since it is controlled by the rebels. In addition, for a successful entrance over the area, coordination must be made by the government to the insurgents. Where a criminal or an offender seeks refuge in the area of temporary stay, officers of the law will cease its pursuit over the former since they will be entering a haven where a need for formal offer of entrance is indispensable.

                         Accordingly, lawless elements would be free to enjoy impunity and easily escape arrest by simply laying his foot on the rebels’ dungeon. It would be to recognize an entity its sovereignty when an area of temporary stay is allowed. A law punishes its violators; it haunts them to every inch of the territory where they choose to hide; more so, it accepts no reason for its non-application. Thus, when a law is served, justice is well in place as the paramount objective of the government to bring in peace and order, but when its application stops at the doorstep of the rebels’ house, where it only gaze the offenders swiftly eluding the force of the law, it shakes the foundation of the Republic as a sovereign nation.

The Vexing Problem of Peace

While the rest of the world watches on how the Philippines stage a peace process to end the communist insurgents and separatist rebels, the government with its vast intelligence and military resources has failed to thwart a treacherous attack by the NPA, the armed group of the Communist Party of the Philippines, against the mining companies in Surigao, last 3 October 2011. With this new armed and political turmoil, the international community casted doubt on whether it is within the capacity of the Philippine government to put a final nail in the coffin on this vexing problem.

The magnitude of such aggression paints a painful question on the ability of the Philippines to protect the multi-billion foreign investments in the country, especially in the field of mining and extraction of other natural resources. The fear to invest in this country would bring about untold consequences such that there would be increase in unemployment, loss of government revenue and lack of trust and confidence from the international community and business leaders. The peace process has long been delayed because of political and idealistic reasons and thus, the delay, with subsequent betrayal of truce, would mean that peace will never be accounted.

The Philippine government must put serious efforts to stop insurgency and provide a long term solution to achieve peace. While diplomacy is the key element to effectuate peace without the stain of blood being spilled, it would be fruitless to hope in the mighty heaven that peace would come at the window by mere agreement in a piece of paper. The need for military action to halt the insurgents’ acts of terrorism must be well in place at this very moment. We cannot have diplomacy and military at the same time, it is the highest form of absurdity in peace process. It is either diplomacy or military action, but to address the deadlock of the former, we must choose the latter.