No place for the seditious in Congress
DAVAO del Norte 1st District Rep. Pantaleon Alvarez, in a public speech in Tagum City to diehard supporters of former president Rodrigo Duterte on Sunday night, issued a call for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) to “withdraw support” from President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Although Alvarez did not explicitly explain why, the implication of his remarks, in line with earlier comments he had made calling on Marcos to resign, is that the President’s refusal to acquiesce to China’s illegal territorial claims in the West Philippine Sea puts the country at risk of a more serious conflict.
Expressing opposition as a member of Congress to the President’s policies is acceptable and, in fact, is an indicator of a healthy democracy. Engaging in sedition and attempting to prod the nation’s military and police into staging a coup is absolutely not acceptable, not for anyone, and especially not for an elected official.
The uniformed services, to their credit, swiftly rejected Alvarez’s call. A statement delivered by an AFP spokesman on Monday emphasized: “The AFP reiterates its unwavering commitment to professionalism, loyalty to the Constitution and strict adherence to the chain of command.” For its part, the PNP said through its spokesman that the police organization “remains loyal to the duly constituted authorities and the 1987 Constitution.”
In the aftermath of his ill-considered remarks, Alvarez has been harshly criticized by many of his House colleagues, with some members calling for an ethics investigation within the House and an investigation for possible criminal charges by the Department of Justice. One House member, La Union 1st District Rep. Francisco Paolo Ortega, even chided Alvarez for shirking his congressional duties in favor of destabilization activities. “We miss you in the House, sir, in plenary sessions and in committee hearings, in which most of us actively participate,” Ortega was quoted as saying.
Despite being roundly excoriated for his remarks, Alvarez, either through an incredible lack of self-awareness or a sincere commitment to rebellion, has so far refused to apologize or retract his statement. On Monday, he justified his comments by saying he was “simply exercising his right to free speech,” and on Tuesday provided the weak and oxymoronic explanation that what he was calling for was a “peaceful” withdrawal of support. Alvarez is spectacularly wrong on both counts.
A private citizen expressing an opinion, even publicly, that the duly elected government ought to be overthrown for not being appropriately subservient to China’s dictator-led government may be exercising his right to free speech. The statement may still be considered seditious, but as a practical matter, unless it results in rebellious actions, it can safely be ignored as the rantings of a misguided malcontent. A member of Congress, however, does not have quite the same privilege. As an elected representative of the people, his statements are already actions; they are held to a higher standard and must be given with a great deal more circumspection.
Furthermore, there is nothing that is in any sense “peaceful” about exhorting the armed forces and the police to violate their oath to uphold the Constitution and defend the nation. Alvarez’s making the ludicrous suggestion that there can be a “peaceful withdrawal of support” is an insult to the collective intelligence of the entire nation.
As we said at the outset, there indeed should be room for opposing viewpoints in government; it is a part of the system of checks and balances that makes democratic government work in serving all the people, not simply those who uncritically support the sitting administration or the political majority. The statement by Alvarez, however, goes far beyond honorable opposition and is an expression of utter contempt for the rule of law and the order maintained by stable institutions.
We support the calls in the House to launch an ethics investigation against Alvarez; in fact, that is the least that should be done. Whether any other action should be taken, such as the criminal investigation suggested by some House members, we leave to the responsible authorities. Whatever happens, however, the consequence should be Alvarez’s removal from office, as his public remarks clearly demonstrate he is unfit for it. If he considers himself to have any dignity, he may preserve some of it by stepping down on his own accord.