The Legality of a Revolution

Democracy, the bedrock of our collective unity, is based on a social contract. When free men enter into a relationship with other men, they basically subsume their individual freedoms for the sake of mutual preservation. A constitution is agreed upon as an expression of this social contract. A society is formed, and from this society, free men elect among themselves competent people to lead and govern them. A government arises as an instrumentality for the people to freely enjoy the provisions of the contract.

The regular presumption is those people behind the government are acting based on the Constitution. They got into positions of authority because the people thru the Constitution said so. What, then, will the people do the moment a group of people, vested by the Constitution with authority, violate the values of the people and the very Constitution they swore to "preserve and defend"?

One example---this unwritten policy of killing suspected drug personalities. Mr. Rodrigo Roa Duterte is elected president. He gave his oath before the people that he will "do justice to every man" while "faithfully and consciously uphold the basic laws of the land."

What Mr. Duterte prescribes is a policy of extermination. His personal slogan is clear---if you kill every single one of the youth of this country, I will kill you, he said several times in his many speeches. Drug lords and their ilk, Duterte says, they kill the youth because they supply the young with shabu. Ergo, these drug personalities deserve being exterminated as a form of "social retribution."

The question that is now before us is this---when Duterte uttered those words and swore before us during his inauguration that he will do justice to every man and faithfully and consciously fulfill his duties and “preserve and defend the Constitution,” did it include an unwritten policy of exterminating these criminal scums off the face of the earth? No.

Duterte swore to give justice to every man. For Duterte, there are two kinds of justice: first, retributive and second, reformative. There is actually another kind of justice--defensive. These concepts are all in our Constitution. However, retributive justice is allowed at a state level, when government defends itself against external and internal threats, while, on peace and order issues, it is reformative. The Constitution prescribes the process involved when it comes to citizens breaking the law. Why is it that the state imposes retribution at a state level, meaning interstate conflicts instead of the state punishes individuals with death? It is the basic nature of states to defend itself based on self-preservation. A mere individual or even a group of citizens cannot harm the state except of course if they arm themselves and lead a widespread revolt. In this case, can drug lords or drug pushers or even drug couriers inflict widespread harm upon the populace? No. Whatever they do, they simply can't overthrow the government.

That is why several people do not seem to understand why Duterte is easy on the Chinese intrusions over Philippine territorial waters while he orders his close men to kill fellow Filipinos over shabu. The acts of China over these shoals and islets within the 200-kilometer economic zone are destructive but the administration under Duterte is just treating them with kid's gloves. Some would say, ah, Patricio, these are two different matters. No. We are discussing justice here. What the Chinese are doing is they are violating our space, and affecting the integrity of our sovereignty over territories we consider our own. That is plain and simple, aggression.

Is Mr. Duterte addressing state level aggression as fiercely and as ferociously as he did against the drug problem? No. The fact is, Duterte even set aside our country's win over China at the global level. And what is the reason for this? Duterte says the Philippines does not stand a chance against China in a war. Are you sure, Mr. Duterte? Probably you forgot that we do have the United States as a treaty partner and we do have the international community backing us up should you decide to engage China and "teach it a lesson" for violating our sovereignty.

Mr. Duterte claims in various occasions, that he owns the Philippine state security forces. He says cops are his, and the military. Duterte tries to buttress his claim by stating, in several instances, that he is “Commander in Chief” of “all the armed forces of the Philippines.” Is Mr. Duterte right? Who is the true “owner” of “all the armed forces of the Philippines?

The Constitution is explicit---all authority rests upon the people. Article 2, Section I is explicit---sovereignty resides with the people and “all government authority emanates from them.” Does authority stops at the Office of the President? No. It goes up to the people. The People is the true sovereign of the armed forces of the Philippines. The fact is—the Constitution specifically states that the AFP is the “protector of the people and the state”. What group the AFP is mandated to protect? It’s the people.

When Mr. Duterte invokes Section 18, Article 7, he is doing so as a representative of the people. He simply does not own these armed forces—Mr. Duterte is simply a caretaker of government. These armed forces are not his personal army. The very reason Mr. Duterte became the “commander-in-chief” of all the armed forces of this country because it was given to him not as a right, but as part of his functions as Chief Executive.

As Chief executive, Mr. Duterte is expected to fulfill his duties based on the Constitution. He swore to preserve and defend the Constitution, which contains the Bill of Rights. Less he forgets, our Constitutional Fathers have included a Bill of Rights there which lays down the rights of the individual over the state. Why is the Bill in there? Because this bill creates the necessary conditions for the creation of a “society of laws, and not of men.” The fact is---individual rights form part of a section in the Constitution termed “state policies”. Respect for human and the people’s rights is a state policy.

Mr. Duterte swore to fulfill his duties, and what are those duties? These duties are state sanctioned or what our Constitution terms “state policies.”

Thereupon, whenever Mr. Duterte utters in his speeches to “kill, kill, kill” and even says he will protect those elements of the state security forces who will kill people while in the performance of their duties, Mr. Duterte is actually violating the law. He is not pursuing state policies which is a set of clear guidelines on human rights, specifically individual rights. Mr. Duterte even proposed to abolish the Commission on Human Rights and the Office of the Ombudsman—constitutional creations established to specifically ensure that people’s and individual rights as state policies are implemented “to the letter” by the state.

That very proposal is a direct contravention of the Constitution and our laws. It is evident that Mr. Duterte has violated and continues to violate state policies as enshrined in the Constitution. What, now, I pray you, is the remedy?

Does the Constitution provide measures to restrain people who abuse their powers and the authority given to them by the people? Yes, there are. Impeachment is one. That is a political measure. What else? Does the people have the right to oust an administration which do not act according to the Constitution?

Yes. The people have the right to launch a revolution against people in government who do not adhere to the precepts of the Constitution and instead, impose their own will upon the people. That act, which an American analyst term as “conservative revolution,” is aimed towards preservation of the Constitution, not its abolition. When people behind government impose their own will and that will is simply not consistent with the Constitution, the people have the right to revolt to preserve and defend the Constitution. It is to the best interest of the people to defend the existing Constitution. The fact is---it is everyone’s civic duty to defend the Constitution because it is the expression of our people’s values and our social contract with the state.

Thus, in these present times, when there is a constant assault on our values and governmental acts as expressed by Mr. Duterte acting as Chief Executive seemed incongruous with state policies as stated in our basic Charter, it is, therefore, the right and civic duty of Filipino citizens everywhere to revolt. Is it unconstitutional to revolt? No.  The Filipino revolution is not directed against the system or the state—it is directed at an administration which refuses to even dignify the Constitution which gave it its authority.

A revolution is not just for the ouster of duly constituted authority, no. Under this conservative revolution, the revolt is directed at an administration which constantly disrespects the values of the people and acts inimical to the best interests and welfare of the majority of the people.

What then, would the armed forces do in the event such a revolution does happen in our lifetime? The Constitution, by which the armed forces derive its existence is clear---defend the People. There is nothing in the Constitution which says “defend Duterte”?  AFP spokesperson Restitutio Padilla is wrong. Padilla based his predicate on the presumption that Mr. Duterte is the Office of the President. He is not. Even Mr. Duterte admitted it in one of his speeches, that he is just occupying the position of President. Mr. Duterte does not own the Office of the President.  For purposes of the Constitution, Mr. Duterte is just the face behind the Office, and not the Office itself.  Mr. Duterte is not the institution but only the man “at this very moment” elected to represent it.

Col. Padilla, sir, you got your Constitutional I studies, all wrong. By issuing a statement stating that the AFP is solidly behind Mr. Duterte, Mr. Padilla is acting like Mr. Duterte’s bitch. Backing up a person is simply, not constitutional. Let me remind Col. Padilla that he swore to protect the “office” not the person occupying such office. When that person who occupies the office constantly violate the Constitution, and even places the entire nation in jeopardy, it is not anymore the responsibility or duty of the AFP to protect the person. The AFP’s duty, in these present times, is to ensure that the Office by which Mr. Duterte derives his authority over the AFP, is secure.

Mr. Duterte, in his speech yesterday, even urged the people to revolt. Then, by all means, as a citizen of this country, I will obey the order of the President. You want the people to raise hell? So be it. Let the hammer fall. But, do not, not even at an instance, think Mr. Duterte of using the AFP just to protect your tough hide. You always posture yourself as a toughie. Let’s see how tough you are.

Filipinos, unite!