Disconnect

The temporary takeover by the military of the Bureau of Customs (BOC) has elicited questions and criticisms from both neutral observers and the political opposition, which is not surprising considering the radical nature of the move. Legal experts are, for example, debating on its legality and constitutionality.

Presidential spokesperson Salvador Panelo, himself a lawyer, therefore has a ton to say about it. His defense was at times compelling and at other times infuriating and insulting. As they say, you win some, you lose some.

“These people (AFP) members will be there first to make their presence felt, to create the military presence and, hopefully, will intimidate those corrupt people there. Number two, to assist (erring Customs personnel),” Panelo said.

Intimidation is really the most obvious purpose of the move, meaning that Panelo got it. President Duterte is apparently hoping it would be enough to momentarily—the stress is on that word--put worry in the minds of the corrupt bureau personnel. Which is also a problem, actually, because what is needed in the bureau is a purging whose effect should be long-lasting.

As for “assisting” in the work of Customs personnel, Panelo should know that it would be difficult because of the specialization the job requires. And it also means the idea of temporarily relieving the Customs personnel and have military personnel fully take over their work is not practical. Those military personnel can’t really be left on their own.

Panelo’s defense of the constitutionality of the move is, however, rather insulting because of the attempt to stretch the meaning of the constitutional provision that allows the deployment by the President of the military to quell any and all forms of lawless violence.

“If you can bring in hundreds of kilos of drugs, then there must be some grave wrong in that area, and there is state of lawlessness there. It violates the law. It violates the Constitution. Now it endangers the security of our countrymen,” Panelo said.

There certainly is a disconnect in that argument from what the Constitution says. That it is being peddled by Malacañang is unfortunate.