RevGov? Not as a matter of right
“If things get out of control ‘at tumagilid yung gobyerno, yon ang’ predicate ‘ko.’ It was not an outright statement.”
-- President Duterte, Nov. 19, 2017
What should bother us more is not President Duterte brandishing “revolution government” to warn his critics but the president sounding as if declaring it were a matter of right.
You know, under the category of declaring martial law or calling out the armed forces “to prevent or suppress” lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
He can declare martial law. He can send out the army, navy and air force to cope with disorder or attack. Those are expressly provided by the Constitution, subject to conditions and limits.
But declaring a revolutionary government? No, sir. Not in the list of presidential powers. Which makes the threats, despite the explanation, epically disturbing.
“Preserve, defend”
The president was elected to run the country under the Constitution, which in his oath last June 30, 2016 he swore to “preserve and defend.”
Like a caretaker of the house for six years, he has the right to use force to defend it against usurpers, vandals and intruders. But he can’t tear or burn down the house so that he’ll build another one in its place where he’s no longer just caretaker but owner and ruler.
Changing governments
Most everyone knows that changing the structure of government can be done only under procedures provided in the Constitution. The president’s duties and functions don’t include the power to change governments, especially one that would dump democracy and install an authoritarian regime. He could call a constitutional convention or a constituent assembly. Not. A. Revolutionary. Government.
That’s why there’s a Constitution. When the people adopted the 1987 Constitution, they agreed that it should be honored and couldn’t be changed even if they, the people, themselves would de- mand it. The Constitution was precisely designed to avoid impulsive, reckless and unauthorized decisions from leaders in throes of crisis.
Risk-laden
If a president would declare a RevGov, that would mean abandoning and violating his oath. It’s an option, yes, for any president who has gone beyond the limits of power, to go rogue and switch roles, from defender and protector to aggressor and violator.
It’s fraught with risk because one-man rule or a military-junta regime is likely to result from a RevGov. Democratic institutions and civil liberties nurtured for so long and struck down by a “revolution” would take years to rebuild. How long did the country’s governance and economy flounder after the Cory Aquino revolutionary government before things became stable and progressive? A banana republic is what the Philippines could be after a seismic change of government.
Keeping control
The president has vast resources and powers, lawful and constitutional, to stay in control. With his popularity still high, he should’ve confidence in his capacity to keep the peace and restore order if any form of lawlessness erupts.
The country had its dark days during martial law and the Marcos dictatorship and uncertain days during Aquino’s transition rule. But it has since found its bearings and has steadily moved on, with its democratic structure occasionally threatened but still working well.
Who’d benefit
The president said his warning carried a “predicate,” but the threatened recourse is something he cannot do, with or without a condition, under his oath and mandate.
What’s incongruous is that he could be declaring a RevGov without a revolution, unless he himself would create it. Would he benefit from it? Not if the armed forces, a necessary component of authoritarian rule, would seize power for themselves.
The nation pins its hopes on its president. Most of us trust he won’t take the country to the edge of an unimaginable yet possible free fall.