A real triumph or Pyrrhic victory?
The rule of law is the hallmark of a democracy. The 1987 Constitution has provided an elaborate system of checks and balances to place restraints upon the three great branches of government in order to prevent abuse of power. This system is not mere verbiage, but as real as it should be in any living constitution.
In our system of government, Congress makes the law; the Supreme Court interprets it, and the President and his subordinates execute it. Adherence to these constitutional mandates is essential to maintain law and order in society.
Almost a century ago, the eminent Supreme Court Justice Jose P. Laurel cautioned that during times of political excitement, the great landmarks of the Constitution are quick to be forgotten or marred, if not entirely obliterated.
The recent actions of the executive branch, more specifically its newfound penchant for defying Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) issued by the Supreme Court, indeed show that there is wisdom in these words.
The perilous road toward the so-called “the real triumph for justice and accountability” began two Tuesdays ago, when the Secretary of Justice stopped former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband, Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo, from leaving the country despite the Supreme Court’s TRO against the DoJ’s Watch List Order (WLO) on the Arroyo spouses. The stated reason was that the executive branch was going to file a motion for reconsideration on the TRO.
Without meaning to condone the acts that gave rise to the WLO, this singular action has placed at risk the rule of law in our country as it placed the executive and judicial branches of government at direct odds with each other.
What is more disturbing is that this was not the first time that this administration has defied a TRO issued by the Supreme Court.
Last month, the Supreme Court issued a TRO in connection with the Poverty Eradication and Alleviation Certificates (PEACe) bonds issued by the government way back in 2001. These were long-term investments set to mature in 2011, or 10 years after their issuance. To entice investors, the government contractually committed that they were not subject to the 20-percent final withholding tax. A month before the maturity date of the bonds, however, the government reneged on its obligation.
Expectedly, innocent investors sought refuge from the Supreme Court which issued a TRO in their favor, but the executive branch acted as though there was no Supreme Court at all. This prompted the court to order the concerned government officials to comply, but they are yet to obey the TRO—yes, more than a month after the TRO had been issued by the Supreme Court.
I’m not even talking about executive embargo or impoundment of legislation passed by Congress or executive amendments of laws, a topic better reserved for another time.
In the meantime, one can only hope that this seemingly newfound penchant for defying the Supreme Court will not be the trend in the years to come. Doing so only serves to erode the confidence of the people in our justice system. Its chilling effect on the administration of justice cannot be overemphasized.
To paraphrase the words of Richard Levenstein, we need people to understand the importance of the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government, for if people lose respect for the judicial system, their respect for law and order will go with it.
Indeed, the rule of law is the cardinal principle of democratic nations. It means that the law is supreme over any individual or government official, and all must follow the law. As the famous saying puts it, “The law applies to all, or none at all.” To borrow the words of the President, it applies to “a vendor or driver, teacher or garbage collector, cop or clerk, from the highest position down to the ordinary citizen.”
But the President must go beyond his words by ensuring that the rule of law applies as well to his alter egos or lieutenants like his secretary of justice, secretary of finance and Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Respect for a co-equal branch—a constitutional precept long held sacrosanct by generations past—demands no less. Without this, our freedoms, democracy and country are in peril.
This President’s political will to hold government officials accountable for their acts is admirable. But this noble “daang matuwid” governance philosophy should look at a much broader picture. He should likewise ensure that it serves the higher good of restoring the confidence of the people in their government—all three great branches of it. It should never sacrifice the dignity of a co-equal branch of government. This is essential to maintain law and order in society.
Without law and order, any victory—in the form of putting the most guilty behind bars—will only be temporary or illusory because of the insidious erosion of the rule of law. Indeed, a mere pyrrhic victory, as some well-meaning and forward-looking people observe.
The immortal words of US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis present an appropriate parting thought in light of these recent events: “In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
(The author is a law professor at the Ateneo de Manila University School of Law. He may be contacted through [email protected].)
