Our government, its structure, power and limitations are circumscribed by our Constitution. This is the country's fundamental, legal and political instrument, having drawn its authority from the sovereign citizens' ratification. No law is more supreme. Any governmental act or statute in violation of the Constitution will always be struck down as oppressive and void.
Lately, however, many of us wonder if our government officials in the legislative and executive branches of government have genuine, in-depth knowledge of what the Constitution is all about - or if they have knowledge of it at all. Meanwhile, the judiciary and the Supreme Court which is supposed to be the interpreter of the Constitution, continues to feed perceptions that the third branch of government is prone to "flip-flopping" on decisions. This gives rise to another negative perception: that the spirit of the Constitution has no constancy in it, and that it is in reality changeable depending on the political milieu and its interpreters.
That people in government take the Constitution for granted is a public perception which is not without basis.
A great majority of the people who get elected to Congress recommend - or even pass - laws that shock us. A prime example is the Cybercrime Prevention Act. It contains provisions which patently infringe on our freedom of expression, of the press, from unlawful search and seizure, and from double jeopardy, all of which are reverently enshrined in the Constitution. Worse, even the most popular legislators admitted that they did not study the consequences of what they approved. Instead of enabling the exercise of our constitutional rights and freedoms, they created obstacles.
These legislators are supposed to be good, but people wonder how could they have missed obvious fundamental safeguards written in the Bill of Rights. Were they just ignorant about them, or, knowing them, did they just take them for granted? Either way, the people are in deep trouble.
Then there are legislative initiatives that boggle the mind. Like recommendations that all media practitioners, like journalist, news-reporters, and even bloggers, be licensed; and that government be empowered to dictate, through proposed "Right-of Reply" rules, what newspapers and radio and television stations must print, publish and broadcast respectively. These are constitutionally repugnant forms of either prior restraint or undue intrusion on the exercise of freedom of speech and of the press. One need not even divine the repugnancy; it is obvious.
It is very clear to me that the majority of our legislators do not know the intricacies of our own Constitution. This is unforgivable. It is shameful.
The executive department is also a concern. For the President to have approved the Cybercrime Law with all its obvious constitutional infirmities is equally mind-boggling. Also, with billions of financial resources earned from the gambling activities of the government through PAGCOR, how could the President have said that funding the activities spelled-out in the "Magna Carta for the Poor" - the proposed law he vetoed - cannot be achieved?
If social justice is the center of the present Constitution, why was this pro-poor law rejected? If the Philippines is truly recovering economically, is it not timely to have this law take effect so that this economic boon can trickle down to the masses?
Why was it so easy to sign into law the Cybercrime Prevention Act that infringes on our constitutional freedoms and also equally easy to veto a pro-poor law which should have given life to the social amelioration objectives of our Constitution? The exercise of presidential prerogatives seem to veer away from what is constitutionally proper.
Also, remember when the President said in a speech that the Sabah issue is a "hopeless cause"? Or when he announced nationally that the government will still study the validity of the Philippine claim over Sabah? These are acts of insensitivity and of ignorance of historical events, respectively. How could the President and his advisers have initially missed out the official claim of the Philippines on Sabah as early as 1962, when sovereignty was ceded to the Philippines, and as recent as 2001 when the Philippines attempted to intervene in the territorial dispute of Malaysia and Indonesia in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to assert our official Sabah-claim? The issue of territory is a matter of constitutional importance and, as such, should have been approached with utmost circumspection - and not by careless, knee-jerk, and obviously unstudied pronouncements. Faux pas like these betray a shallow understanding of basic constitutional law.
Now lets look at the Supreme Court. The third branch of government is unique. It is composed of 15 high magistrates with absolutely no direct mandate from the people, unlike our legislators and the President. Unlike with all other government officials, it is generally prohibited to talk to the Justices of the Supreme Court. And yet they are so privileged. They earn among the highest salaries in government and enjoy many privileges as public servants. They will receive probably the best retirement-pension arrangement that government can provide. They wield great power because their decisions can affect private individuals and the whole nation. They can put a man to jail for life. Even if their decision is wrong, they will generally not be held accountable but the incarcerated innocent person will suffer the ignominy, hardship, and desolation of a prison cell and, more often than not, without anymore recourse. And these justices can only be ousted through an impeachment trial which is the hardest procedure for removing a public servant. It is therefore highly justified that the citizenry have the highest expectations as to their performance. There is no room for error on their part because their decision can mean life or death, freedom or its deprivation, emancipation or continued bondage, justice or injustice.
Insofar as the Constitution is concerned, the Supreme Court's role is key. The justices interpret the Constitution and its provisions directly affecting the manner of their implementation.
But how has the Supreme Court performed lately? A tendency to flip-flop, which was an issue in the impeachment trial of ousted Chief Justice Corona, is still perceived as existing.
The Court's ruling on partylists is a good example: from a former interpretation imbued with a social cause, which reserved the system only in favor of the marginalized or underprivileged sectors of society, the Supreme Court has changed the very essence of the entire partylist system, now making it open to all, including billionaires, thereby removing the preference for the underrepresented.
Regardless of the arguments of the justices, there is a perception that interpretations change depending on who sit as justices.
Justice Hugo Black of the United States Supreme Court said: "(The) Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind." And yet the decision in the mayoralty race in a town in Cavite is also illustrative: originally the Supreme Court decided for the defeated mayor to assume the position. Then it was changed to the "other" mayor. If this pattern continues, justice may be elusive for both contending parties.
The ouster of Chief Justice Renato Corona was dramatic, but the appointment of a new Chief Justice was perhaps traumatic to some in the judiciary. Immediately after the assumption of Chief Justice Sereno, the gestures of the other justices or some of them were negative. There was no attendance in the flag ceremony generating a public perception of bickerings, professional jealousy, and personal animosity within the institution. There were even story-leaks of non-attendance in meetings and even shoting matches in en banc sessions. If the Supreme Court is supposed to stand for all the good things in the Constitution, the said actuations of the Justices do not reflect this.
These observations cannot be shoved aside. Public perceptions, though at times presumptuous, are not simply generated out of nothing. People make judgments from what they see and read. If fully expressed publicly, their accumulation creates public opinion.
Government may or may not heed public opinion depending on its consistency with public interest, but public opinion must nevertheless always be given a measure of serious scrutiny. As George Bancroft, a famous American historian, said "the best government rests on the people, and not on the few, on persons and not on property, on the free development of public opinion and not on authority." The wheels of democracy effectively turn only to the extent that public opinion is addressed correctly and effectively by the government.
That our public officials take the Constitution for granted is the worst kind of public perception. Even worse is the view that they have no substantial knowledge of our Constitution at all. If public opinion continues to go this way, all laws and all acts made by our government officials will always be met with skepticism, doubt and suspicion. The erstwhile rule on the presumption of regularity of official acts will just be an empty aphorism. And if all these were to come to pass, faith in the government will surely be eroded to the great prejudice of all.
No comments:
Post a Comment