Queen’s gambit

It was early evening of February 22, exactly 34 years ago, when I began to hear a disturbing bit of news from Manila through a then technological fancy called “live radio coverage.” Men with highcaliber firearms were sighted somewhere in a multi-laned EDSA. They were in military uniforms and people started to wonder against whom the army men were preparing for war. As the event unfolded and broadcast live beyond Metro Manila, a senator and a general together with rabid supporters coiled themselves in a military barracks supposedly to resist a possible arrest order issued by a president. For three days, a bloody confrontation between two opposing camps hedged but didn’t materialize, although the ruckus escalated to be known as People Power Revolution. The government that was established from the chaos, not being fashioned from constitutional provisions, was revolutionary. And its head was Corazon Aquino, although she later legitimized her regime by putting constitutional foundations. It wasn’t our first post-World War II revolutionary government. In 1972, former President Ferdinand Marcos cited constitutional grounds of rebellion and lawlessness in his Presidential Proclamation 1081. His litany included the bombings of Plaza Miranda, the surge of communism, the raid of the armory of the Philippine Military Academy, and others. Evidence to support his assertions wasn’t needed at that time though. The question that lurked in my mind was “so what?” Marcos’ second term as president, written in our 1935 fundamental law, would have otherwise ended in 1973. Marcos perpetuated himself in power using martial law. Having said that, let me work with my imagination and dwell on some possibilities, no matter how remote they may be, on the sociopolitical ramifications of the quo warranto proceedings filed by the solicitor general. This is so because, to me, the case filed against the ABS-CBN is, in chess, called a queen’s gambit. The cause of action is probably made indistinct as to polarize citizens. For instance, not many of us fathom the allegation in the petition. We haven’t even read the petition. In our confusion, we tend to side with our political leanings. In this regard, the substance of the petition matters less. As a people, we have the tendency to side with the oppressed. Since ABS-CBN appears to be oppressed, we tend to cast our lot with it. The president’s supporters, on the other hand, take his side.

In another angle, the quo warranto case is but a parallel move to the inaction of our Congress on the franchise bill. The delay of the Congressional action on the renewal of the franchise will be cushioned by the court action. This case is thus filed with the ultimate objective of closing ABS-CBN. Why? Duterte, earlier in his administration, declared that ABS-CBN violated his contract in not airing his propaganda despite his having paid for its broadcast. This is in the nature of a comeuppance or in the language of former President Joseph Estrada. “weather-weather” lang.

Based on both parameters, the reaction of the people will serve as the powder keg of social unrest. They will be agitated enough. Mass demonstrations denouncing constitutional violations, among them of the doctrine of prior restraint, will be massive. Since as always, there are two sides of a coin, certainly the establishment will use all state forces to stem the tide of discontent. In the clash, the last option is for the president to establish a revolutionary government like what Marcos and Cory did, and when this is raised, we will have seen the perpetuation of power. And this to me, is the goal. I hope I’m wrong.