THE Aquino administration’s open defiance of the Supreme Court-issued temporary restraining order (TRO) on its attempts to bar former President and now Rep. Gloria Arroyo of Pampanga province and
her husband Jose Miguel Arroyo from traveling abroad continues an obvious pattern that began way before President Benigno Aquino 3rd took office. Judging from Tuesday’s drama, President Aquino seems willing and even keen to challenge legal conventions and judicial institutions to pursue his agenda.
One big issue keeps rearing its head every time the government tests its legal limits: Should the law and due process be compromised to pursue reform? As University of Santo Tomas political science professor Ed Tayao put it, “We all want truth and justice, but must we undermine law and order to pursue it?”
President Aquino has certainly been pushing the legal envelope since last year. And there is little to dissuade him, since legal controversies, which most Filipinos find uninteresting or unintelligible, do not hurt his approval ratings.
When the High Court allowed then-President Arroyo to appoint a new Chief Justice despite the election ban—a decision that deprived the next leader of that prerogative—the leading candidate for president joined the chorus of objectors, from fellow senators to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
After he won, President-elect Aquino rebuffed Mrs. Arroyo’s chosen one, Chief Justice Renato Corona, and took his inaugural oath before Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales. She had opposed Corona’s so-called ‘midnight appointment’ and was named Ombudsman during the State of the Nation Address in July.
Right after taking office, President Aquino issued Executive Order No. 1—the creation of the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC)—with the express purpose of investigating his predecessor’s regime. The High Court, however, later ruled the PTC as unconstitutional for zeroing in on one administration, thus violating equal protection under the law.
The magistrates also issued a TRO against the Palace’s removal of the head of the Office of Muslim Affairs, who challenged presidential orders to replace officials who were posted by Mrs. Arroyo before the election ban took effect, but took their oaths of office afterward.
A month later, Mr. Aquino criticized attempted coup cases against rebel soldiers like his ally Sen. Antonio Trillanes 4th, even though a Makati City court had been trying the 2003 Oakwood mutiny for years. Before the judge could rule on the case, the President granted amnesty to the alleged putschists. He also got the Department of Justice to drop suits against the “Morong 43”, freeing the alleged or admitted insurgents.
Also likely to be legally challenged is President Aquino’s suspension of perfected infrastructure contracts inherited from the Arroyo administration. They involve China’s rehabilitation of the northern Luzon rail line, the dredging of Laguna Lake by a Belgian company, and the construction of 72 roll-on-roll-off ports by a French contractor.
Reneging on the contracts could trigger costly legal suits abroad. But even more damaging, they undermine investor confidence needed to lure capital for Mr. Aquino’s flagship public-private partnerships for needed mega-infrastructure.
When the Supreme Court rules against presidential orders, the President often sets aside courtesy among co-equal branches of government and openly castigates the High Court, turning what should be legal issues into political jousts.
Moreover, administration lawmakers like Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas of Ilocos Norte province have threatened the justices with impeachment if they rule against the government on certain cases, such as the constitutionality of impounding budgets for unfilled positions in independent bodies.
President Aquino’s frictions with the Supreme Court were prefigured in a previous conflict with another constitutionally independent entity: his “OMG” campaign to oust then-Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez. That ended with her resignation just before a Senate impeachment trial was to begin in February.
Yet even with his appointed Ombudsman in place, Mr. Aquino still issues statements that appear to prod the anti-graft czar to charge the Arroyos by a certain date. That recently prompted Morales to state publicly that she was “impervious to pressure.”
Before the watch list order controversy, the most recent test of legal limits was the recent law postponing elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), and empowering the President to appoint ARMM officials. This also elicited a TRO from the High Tribunal.
With the open defiance of Tuesday’s restraining order, the President’s assertion of his agenda against legal conventions, institutions and strictures now moves to a potentially more perilous plane.
Just as the Marcos regime mobilized all government instru-mentalities to stop former Sen. Benigno
“Ninoy” Aquino Jr. from exercising his right to return to the country on August 21, 1983, the Aquino government has pressed the police, immigration, investigation, and aviation authorities in a concerted effort to deny the Arroyos their constitutional right to travel, in defiance of an express order from the highest court in the land.
Back in 1983, the Marcoses believed that they could stop Ninoy because of their security apparatus. Today, his son thinks that his huge popularity would keep the people on his side in his test of wills against Mrs. Arroyo and the judiciary.
In both episodes, the danger lies in setting aside statutes and institutions using the power of the presidency, whether buttressed by the Marcos dictatorship or by President Aquino’s popularity. The net result is the same: The government asserts its will against rulings of duly constituted bodies of justice. So even if a court decides in favor of a citizen, the authorities can disregard it.
Is this assertion of executive might over the judiciary really the straight path to truth, justice and reform—or a dangerous turn undermining law, rights and democracy?
Ricardo Saludo heads the Center for Strategy, Enterprise & Intelligence (
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
), publishing The CenSEI Report, which provides analytic research on national, business and global issues.
