FORCE OF LAW
By Alan F. paguia

Implication refers to a meaning that is not expressed directly. Hence, it means “indirect expression.”

The law
1. In law, the legislator, the law enforcer, and the adjudicator must say what they mean and mean what they say. This applies in both direct and indirect expression.

2. This is an essential reason why ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith (Art. III, Civil Code).
The lawmaker

3. Those who are charged with making the laws are necessarily required to write into law what they mean, and to mean exactly what they have written.
The law enforcer

4. Those who are charged with enforcing the laws are necessarily required to enforce the law as it is written, and not as they think it ought to be enforced in any other way.
The adjudicator

5. Those who are charged with clarifying the laws are necessarily required to apply the law as it is written, and not as they think it ought to be.

Controlling jurisprudence
6. According to the Supreme Court, the law must be administered not as we think it ought to be, but as we find it, without regard to the consequences (Velasco v. Lopez, 1 Phil. 720).

What are those consequences? They refer to what may be perceived as possible injustice. In other words, even if there may be some basis for assuming that a possible injustice may be committed by applying the clear language of the law, the concerned public office must nonetheless apply the law as it is written. There is no exception. To rule otherwise would violate the principle of separation of powers under which the clear language of the law may not be amended, modified or repealed, except when intentionally done by the legislature.

7. If this is true with respect to laws passed by Congress, then it applies with greater force with respect to the fundamental law.

The problem
8. Is the government consistent in observing the foregoing principle? It is respectfully submitted the answer is NO. And the necessary implication is there is no full adherence to the rule of law. Consequently, it would be difficult to convince the citizenry to comply with the laws. Why? Because the government should lead by example. If the example given is negative, the natural reaction would be to follow the negative example. The result is adherence to the rule of force.

9. Take for instance the legislative department. It is supposed to set an example of obedience to the 1987 Constitution. But what does it do instead? It deviates from the rule. Under the fundamental law, the Supreme Court has the exclusive authority to promulgate rules regarding pleadings, practice, and procedure in all courts. Congress has done the opposite. While the SC has promulgated the rules of court governing the process of adoption, the Congress has passed a law amending the same by converting the judicial process, which requires the approval of a judge after the requisite trial, into a mere administrative process, which replaces the approval of a judge with the approval of the Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).  

10. How about the executive department? Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019 as amended), public officers and employees who are under investigationa for graft and corruption should not be allowed to resign or retire (Sec. 12). It will be recalled that former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez was impeached and thereby placed under investigation by the Senate for reported graft and corruption. The initial hearing was set on a Monday. But the Friday before that day, Ombudsman Gutierrez filed her resignation letter with President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco III who promptly affixed his signature of approval on the resignation letter. The question is: DID THE PRESIDENT VIOLATE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL OATH TO FAITHFULLY ENFORCE THE LAW? It is respectfully submitted the answer is YES. Yet, the Members of the House of Representatives do not seem to notice the very public presidential defiance of Section 12 of RA 3019. Neither do the Senators. Neither do the members of civil society and mass media. And neither the supposed traditional opposition. While violation of the constitutional oath constitutes a ground for impeachment, either as culpable violation of the Constitution or betrayal of public trust, the glaring presidential offense seems invisible to those charged with public trust to initiate and complete the impeachment process. The result is, consequently, favorable to the one under investigation, and necessarily unfavorable to the sovereign Filipino people who have been unduly or unlawfully deprived of knowing the truth. Likewise, the President, instead of being held accountable, appears to have been acquitted even before he can be charged. Surely, this would not appear as part of the administration’s claim of following or leading the people towards the daang matuwid.

11. How about the judiciary? Under the Constitution, the Ombudsman has been vested with the blanket authority to investigate any public officer for any act of impropriety. The Constitution does not provide for any exception. The office was created for the purpose of strengthening the principle of checks and balance. In Maceda v. Vasquez, the justices of the SC excluded themselves and the other officers and employees of the judiciary, including the janitor of the lowest court, from the constitutional jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. They invoke the principle of separation of powers, without discussing its twin principle of checks and balance. The problem is: the Constitution does not exempt them from the coverage of the mandate of the Ombudsman. However, the latter office seems to be more loyal to the SC than to the fundamental law. Hence, the Ombudsman has not exercised its investigative powers against any member or officer or employee of the judiciary. What is the necessary implication?

The SC may provide an exemption to the Constitution by way of interpretation or construction even if such exemption appears negated by the clear verba of the supreme law.
Conclusion

12. It should not be too much of a wonder why there appears so much deviation from the rule of law on the part of the Filipino citizenry. The negative examples set by their own government provides what appears to be an irresistible temptation to follow their leaders.

Under the law, leaders are not allowed to say to their followers that they should follow what they say but not what they do. What is the necessary implication of all these? Ours is far from the just and humane society we claim to wish to build under the 1987 Constitution. The undeniable fact is that the declaration of the purpose “to build a just and humane society” carries with it the necessary implication that ours is an unjust and inhumane society.