Unbridled Feelings

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Before I proceed, permit me to thank you for this privilege to be your guest speaker today. You really do me a great honor, for which I am truly grateful.

From the time I left the Senate, it has been my preference to avoid any kind of public engagement. As much as possible, I wanted to enjoy the serenity of private life.

However, because I understand that you desire to hear from the political opposition on current national issues, I decided to accept your call. And so I have chosen to discuss with you this afternoon the status of the rule of law in the country under the present dispensation.

A great mind once said that society is a blessing; that government, even in its best, is but a necessary evil; and that, in its worst, an intolerable one. That was Thomas Paine, the English political writer, more than two centuries ago. Paine spoke as if he was referring to our country under its present condition.

Indeed, today we have a government that is perhaps the most wayward in our history and the least observant of legal norms. It has often violated the rule of law. It has recurrently trampled upon that basic principle that stands "between us and the tyranny of mere will and cruelty of unbridled feeling," to borrow the words of the eminent jurist, Justice Felix Frankfurter, of the United States Supreme Court.

To begin with, even the emergence of the current government was the result of a direct assault against the Constitution.

I am sad to say it, but I must. For it is a fact of history that the incumbent president ascended to her high and mighty position not through a freely given mandate of the people but through the use of violence.

From her own lips, she did conspire with others, according to her, shortly after she was elected as the second highest official of the land, to unseat a duly elected President of the Republic through the instrumentality not of law but of illegal force.

The conspiracy, I understand, has been planned long before the onset of an impeachment trial, which is the only lawful process authorized by the people in their Constitution to remove a duly elected president of the Republic.

She was then the Vice President of the country. And as such, she took an oath of office "to preserve and defend the Constitution." But, she did not!

In short, the procedure outlined in the Constitution to remove a freely chosen president of the people was wantonly disregarded.

Political and martial pressure, planned and executed with covert precision, was used simply because it was thought to be far more practical and effective and surer way to achieve the premeditated end.

The military was drawn in and employed as an indispensable part of the partisan political cabal. Undoubtedly, the military organization decided the outcome of the deadly enterprise.

But, the involvement of the military was not the work of rebellious enlisted men or of some disgruntled officers. It was the initiative of some top generals, who were in command of the military.

These top generals swore with their sacred honor to preserve and defend the Constitution. But they did not. They, instead, desecrated the Constitution of the land.

In doing so, they violated and mired the sacred tradition of the military service, which proscribed the armed forces of the country from being involved in partisan political competition.

Their conduct was a brazen contempt of their professional obligation of loyalty and obedience to the Constitution and to the duly constituted authority of the Republic.

The high-ranking generals were led by the Chief of Staff himself. He was the military commander in the chain of command immediately below the President. He was the principal and direct adviser of the President on security and military problems of the nation.

As the number one soldier of the Republic and the overall commander of the entire military organization of the country, the Chief of Staff was entrusted with the supreme duty and constitutional responsibility to protect and preserve the Presidency -- the seat of state and political power of the nation -- if need be, with his own life against any form or threat of predatory force.

Regrettably, the Chief of Staff defaulted totally in his duty and responsibility. He did not rise to the demand of the laws of the land and to the call of his code of honor as a man in uniform.

Instead of the protector, the defender, and the preserver of the Constitution as he should have been, he became its dangerous and perfidious aggressor. He was the first to turn his back and commit an act of infidelity against his commander-in-chief.

He cut the chain of command at his level by simply withdrawing in so many words his professional obligation of fealty, loyalty, and obedience to the president freely elected by the people. This was how swift, efficient, and effective the operation was to unseat the president of the country.

What the Chief of Staff did was unusual, to say the least. He was supposed to be a well-trained and hardened soldier instilled with discipline. I am certain History will judge him.

Let me now turn briefly to the recently concluded war against Iraq. Here we see again another obvious violation of the rule of law.

As you already know, the President, in spite of her declaration to the contrary, involved us in a state of war against Iraq. She consented tacitly if not publicly to the inclusion of the country in the so-called "coalition of the willing."

She did this on her own initiative. She did not solicit the consent of the people or the authority of Congress. She totally ignored Congress. And she disregarded the people, although she knew that the people were opposed to the war.

Under the Constitution, no one except Congress has the sole power and authority to declare the existence of a state of war between our country and a foreign enemy.

In doing what she did, the President committed an imprudent act. She endangered the lives, property, and livelihood of many Filipinos here and abroad. She spent public funds without any authorization from Congress to respond to a distant war, which had no direct and proximate bearing on us.

She justified her decision on the basis of a self-serving claim that she was the architect of our foreign policy. But, that was not altogether true. Her action in respect to Iraq was, in reality, a part of her contrived "anti-terrorism" policy.

No matter how much one will search our Constitution and laws, he can not find anything there that even remotely suggests any power given to the President to commit our country and people to a state of war against any foreign enemy.

What one will find, instead, is a clear command that only Congress "by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in a joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war" against any foreign enemy of the Republic.

In fact, the Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy. It adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. And it adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.

Furthermore, the President, like all the rest of us, is prohibited, under pain of punishment, from taking any action or making any decision or uttering any statement that will provoke or tend to provoke, or will give occasion for war, or will expose Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons or property here and abroad. This is the clear command of Article 118 of the Revised Penal Code.

Incidentally, I wish to state my position very clearly. I am in favor of helping the United States and her partners in the "coalition of the willing." However, any assistance we extend to them must be within our capability and must scrupulously respect our laws.

We must not disregard our Constitution and laws simply because of our desire to help our friends. We must act in accordance with our constitutional processes and not on the basis of arbitrary human discretion.

The President has a duty "to preserve and defend" the Constitution of the Philippines. As president of the country, she has a constitutional obligation to see to it that the laws are faithfully executed.

Time and again, the President has also violated the principle of separation of powers. She has on several occasions intruded into the domain of the other co-equal and coordinate departments of the government.

For instance, she abolished unilaterally a legally created and organized government agency, like the Public Estate Authority, which Congress alone has the power to create and dissolve.

She has officially and formally declared the PIATCO contract invalid and void, and she ordered the government to take over the operation of the NAIA Passenger Terminal III, long before the Supreme Court acted on the case of PIATCO.

We all know, of course, that only a court of law has the power, in a proper case, to declare a contract invalid, annulled, and unenforceable.

Likewise, she has capriciously and arbitrarily removed or attempted to remove from office, without due process, career civil service employees.

Legally, civil service employees cannot be removed from their positions except for cause as provided by law.

But such legal niceties do not seem to be agreeable to the President and have not deterred her from realizing her personal wishes.

Contrary to the constitutional norms that protect the rights of persons charged with crimes and in violation of their right to due process, she has wantonly paraded over television screens persons alleged to have committed serious crimes. She has done this not once, not twice, but repeatedly, in total disregard of the rights and feelings of the persons involved and her constitutional oath of office "to do justice to every man."

In addition, she has appointed more than the number of undersecretaries authorized by law for certain line departments of the Executive Branch of the government. She has also appointed more than the number of commissioners authorized by law for certain agencies of the government.

Undoubtedly, this is not in accord with her constitutional oath of office "to faithfully execute the laws."

She has allowed a citizen of the Republic, Ronald Lumbao, to languish in jail all this time. And yet, she spared his companions and others, who, like him, were similarly situated, from prosecution for "a state of rebellion," whatever that meant, because of Edsa III.

Under her, the full might of the judiciary has been used to advance her personal interest. In many instances, the judiciary was also used to discredit, demonize, cow, and immobilize her political rivals, enemies, and critics.

To end this discourse, let me recall to you some eloquent and memorable words from one of Abraham Lincoln's many speeches. This best distills the adherence to the rule of law that ought to reign in a free and democratic society like ours. According to Abraham Lincoln in his speech delivered in Springfield, Illinois, January 27, 1837 --

"Let reverence for the law be breathed by every . . . mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap; let it be taught in schools, seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in primers, spelling books, and in almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation, and let the old and young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay of all sexes and tongues and colors and conditions sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars."

Thank you.

Speech of Hon . Juan Ponce Enrile delivered before the Rotary Club of Manila, on 15 May 2003, at the Champagne Room of the Manila Hotel.