Constitutional Crisis? Did it not start with the SC Ruling?

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS would be the outcome, some say, of President Aquino’s decision to file a motion for reconsideration of the High Court’s ruling on DAP.

Old and new media served as platforms for vehement criticism of the president’s decision, describing this as defiant and arrogant. Of the nine that CMFR scans and reviews, only two newspapers refrained from using the word “defy” in its various forms: BusinessWorld and Manila Bulletin stuck to word, “appeal.”

The social media, the platform for more bullying speech, raised the hype as usual: The president was taking the ruling personally, he was bratty and autocratic; and there was more of this to be heard on radio. He should just take this like a man and move on.

In an attempt I think to raise themselves above the fray, other critics warned gravely that his decision would move government to the brink.

But the motion for reconsideration is written into our legal system, even on Supreme Court decisions. Why should the Chief Executive be denied this prerogative?

As for the impending clash between the equal and separate branches of government, hello, it is already in full swing. And those afraid of it should work on tempering the rhetoric because such speech tends to sideline reason.

The Supreme Court decision involves itself in judging the implementation of the budget which is an executive task. The legislative actually has the function of oversight of that implementation. That decision then was as much a direct strike that tilted the balance in the exercise of government powers.

And yet we have no choice but to accept clash, contestation and sometimes crisis as part of the system. Otherwise, there can be abuse of political power, with elite groups conspiring in harmony to hold power through all the three branches.

The executive has responded with a decision to appeal, which serves to restore some balance in the exercise of power. Maybe, this has never been done before; but it is well within the system built on the principle of checks and balance.

Having said this, I am concerned that we may not yet be possessed of enough political maturity that would allow such contestation to proceed without deepening the lines that already divide our society. We seem to be talking without wanting to seek common ground. I am afraid that there is too much corruption, too much patronage, too much politicization and partisanship to actually achieve the delicate balance of separate but equal powers in government.

The immediate call for impeachment proceedings against the president raised the level of crisis. And the partisanship operating through our free media has aggravated the situation.

Note that the hue and cry that met the president’s decision to appeal is in direct contrast to quick acceptance of the Court’s decision. No one saw crisis writ in 13 justices striking down aspects of DAP. No one saw the withholding of the doctrine of operative fact on the remaining unfinished projects that were operating on received funds as excessive of the limits of judicial review. While bridges which were built need not be destroyed; the decision said that no more activities should continue, even on those that had already been started. No one complained of impending paralysis when the Supreme Court struck down an executive policy: even when the ruling granted that it had wrought so much public good.

Was this halting of ongoing executive action not an over-reach of the power of judicial review? The late political scientist, Joseph M. Burns, wrote about the rising power of the Supreme Court in the US and called for term limits for Supreme Court justices. Ours, like that of the US, is also a presidential system, where the chief executive is the only official who is responsible for the entire government all the time, as a lawyer argued in defense of DAP in the SC. He was asked, “Is this a new doctrine of government?”

I say, it is hardly new. In the Philippines, this has been the popular view of presidential responsibility when, indeed, everything was centralized in Manila and in Malacañang. It continues to be so, even after the Local Government Code was passed during the presidency of Corazon Aquino devolving powers down to cities, provinces and towns.

We criticize President Aquino for not expressing his displeasure at the glacial pace of the Ampatuan Massacre trial. We blame him for the failure of Congress to enact the law for Freedom of Information. Critics call the president to explain the recurring failure of local government to respond to disaster and calamity.

Why then do we see as arrogant his desire to get a second chance to argue his case in interpreting the legal provisions for DAP’s validity. This mechanism, among others adopted by this administration, was intended to reform one of the most dysfunctional systems that actually, with little notice from anyone, especially from the media, to support corrupt practices in the past. Why then should we prevent another chance to defend his good faith?

More to the point of his appeal, I feel, is that the ruling also withheld the application of the doctrine of operative fact on the “authors, proponents and implementers of the DAP, unless there are concrete findings of good faith.” These words presume the absence of good faith, as it seeks concrete evidence for proof of the same.

After hearing President speak, I went back to re-read the decision to absorb the implied judgment in these words and understood fully the need for his appeal.

The Motion for Reconsideration is part of the judicial system. It is given as part of process of defense. Let’s hear him. He deserves it. Former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban has presented options for the justices to consider hopefully to restore balance to institutional powers.

In the meantime, the media should be fair, and provide time and space for opposing views to continue to be heard on this issue; so the debate and discussion can reflect genuine discourse. So far, there has been only a preponderance of critics ready to condemn.

As for ordinary citizens, they should be ready to do their part and listen to all sides.