Path to self-destruction

In order to allay apprehensions about President Duterte’s plan of establishing a revolutionary government, Malacañang has issued a statement reassuring that there is no such thing. This is so because there are no impending threats of destabilization that would justify the same.

But what if these threats later supervene? Will it be legally feasible for Mr. Duterte to establish a revolutionary government?

I don’t think so and here are reasons why:

First, the “operative fact” — revolution — that would otherwise justify a revolutionary government is wanting under the current state of affairs. Treatises on the matter are unified on the concept that a revolutionary government is one which comes into existence in defiance of existing legal processes. Simply put, it is one borne out of overthrowing an existing duly constituted government.

One need not look for external precedents. In fact, the Philippines experienced a revolutionary government under Corazon Aquino as a consequence of the 1986 People Power Revolution that overthrew Ferdinand Marcos from power. Barred by the legal requisites of the 1973 Constitution to take over the presidency, Mrs. Aquino instead opted to begin her governance by virtue of Proclamation No. 3 or what history knows as her “provisional constitution.” Hence, it becomes apparent that the establishment of a revolutionary government presupposes the existence of the same kind and nature of revolution—one that overthrows an existing and duly constituted one.

Mr. Duterte may not overthrow himself and the duly constituted government which conferred upon him all such powers he currently exercises. To do so is complete absurdity, unless he otherwise chooses the path to self-destruction. If at all, those who are supposed to harbor the idea of a revolutionary government are his purported detractors and destabilizers—not him.

Second, the switch from a republican state to one operating under a revolutionary government has no constitutional basis. Section 1, Article II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly declares that the Philippines is a democratic and “republican state” and that “sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.”

At this juncture, it warrants emphasis that such a declaration is not a motherhood statement. It comprises the fundamental tenets on which the very foundation of our government rests. Hence, a disregard thereof is tantamount to an act tainted with utmost unconstitutionality.

Finally, others may argue that Mr. Duterte, pursuant to his constitutionally recognized “residual powers,” may use the same to establish a revolutionary government. While this power is plenary and encompassing in nature, one must remember that its due exercise contemplates only those that are incidental and necessarily implied from those conferred and sanctioned by our Constitution. And since a revolutionary government doesn’t have any place in our organic law, this highly recognized and frequently upheld power cannot therefore be invoked.

JANE TALOSIG, [email protected]