On revolutionary governments

The closest definition I can give to the term "revolutionary government" without yielding to the academic influence of the university where I revolve around is this - it is a form of a rule that disregards a written constitution. That is the best layman's language I can compose for such a new and hugely profound term. I must state however the caveat that every now and then I have to resort to the works of learned minds for a better understanding of some aspects of the discussion.

Since President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, has recently mentioned and hinted something about "revolutionary government" and those who walk on the corridors of his power have since echoed him, I dare to write on this topic conscious that I might touch on some sensitive toes. It is my sincere hope to add a little understanding to this concept. If, in my discourse, I muddle even more the topic and aggravate the confusion, I beg your apology.

The fundamental laws of democratic countries like ours invariably have three essential parts, one of which provides for a method of amendment. Constitutionalists call this portion as "constitution of sovereignty."From the eminent Vicente G. Singco, former President of the University of the Philippines, I quote: "The essentiality of the provisions of the constitution describing the method of amendment is both procedural and substantive in character.With respect to the first, such provisions serve as an orderly method of bringing about the most radical constitutional reforms that the people desire.Thus, they act as a safety valve against violent agitations which otherwise may result in revolution.With respect to the second, they offer an opportunity for the deletion of obsolete or ill-suited portions of the constitution and for the filling up of undesirable gaps which render the constitutional system inadequate."

The 1987 Philippine Constitution provides for this portion called "constitution of sovereignty" in Article XVII entitled Amendments or Revisions. I should like to believe that if the president has in mind to change the constitution, in the very process that is provided by the charter, it must necessarily be constitutional. He only sets in motion Article XVII. But the words he said are clear and unmistakable.

President Duterte, apparently within the umbra of his oftrepeated pronouncement of change, talks about a revolutionary government.Within the context of changing the charter, he must be referring a Supreme Court which in part says: "A written constitution is susceptible of change in two ways: by revolution and by revision."

Revolution implies action not pursuant to any provision of the constitution itself. When the president mentions revolutionary government, he indicates that he does not seek, in accordance therewith, an amendment to or revision of our fundamental law in order to set up a new form of government, including Federal. And with the president ruling the country as head of a revolutionary government, he will be our absolute Tyler. His words will be our law and there will be no legal limits to his actions no matter how devious they become.

I can, of course, be entirely wrong in this deduction of mine and so I hope and pray. The road towards a revolutionary government is not laid out in the Constitution. As I defined at the outset, a kind of government that comes out of a revolution disregards a written charter. In fact, the provisions in our fundamental law are written to prevent the ascendance of an revolutionary ruler.

Still, if the president is bent on forming this revolutionary government he and his subalterns have been recently mouthing, he has to make sure that the other constitutional organs capable of stalling his actions play coy, if not neutralized. The leadership of the House of Representative in his kindred in many regards while theSenate President is his partymate, to say the least. We cannot expect them to stand against the president's march to revolutionary government.

That leaves the Supreme Court as the probable last obstacle towards the president's becoming the virtual dictator as a leader of a revolutionary government. While perceived the weakest department of government, the Supreme Court can be depended upon to uphold the supremacy of the constitution. An independent Supreme Court can stand eye to eye with the President. I am thus frightened that the snowballing impeachment against the Chief Justice is part of the juggernaut called revolutionary government.