The Long View : The rule of law
Manuel L. Quezon III
Inquirer News Service
YESTERDAY, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita announced, "The rule of calibrated preemptive response is now in force, in lieu of maximum tolerance. The authorities will not stand aside while those with ill intent are herding a witting or unwitting mass of people and inciting them into actions that are inimical to public order and the peace of mind of the national community." The term "maximum tolerance" has always been an offensive one -- it presumes that people wanting to hold protest rallies against the government may do so only because the authorities have granted them the favor of a permit to rally when, in truth, rallying is a right, a form of peaceably petitioning government for redress of grievances.
But a "calibrated preemptive response" -- what is that? A systematic strategy to gradually increase the use of force even ahead of a rally; that is, to head off a rally by means calculated to hamper such efforts with a show of force. In other words, a deliberate, official policy of thwarting the rights of the people is in force.
I have publicly stated my opposition to protest rallies at this point, for many reasons. The main one is that rallies do not take into account how the landscape of Metro Manila has changed. Another reason is, with a society as divided between the "active" and "inactive" as we have now (I'm increasingly convinced that the majority are against the President, anyway), the inactive would be better convinced, if rallies didn't play into the hands of the administration. There is also the reason that times being hard as they are, a rally hampers the movement of people who simply can't afford to rally and who are the ones actually penalized by the rallies because it would take them longer travel time to reach destinations or because they get to their respective workplaces late, and so on.
Some readers gently chided me for such position. One pointed out that, first of all, rallying is now an integral part, an essential manifestation of democracy. Another reminded me that rallies serve another essential purpose, that is, to demonstrate on whose side the government really is: the people's or itself.
The price of democracy, then, is inconvenience, just as an essential attribute of democracy is the right to dissent. This includes my right to dissent (with some public officials) on the application of the Penal Code's provisions on sedition (which I consider a colonial relic, enacted during the American rule-that is, prior to the Commonwealth). Our country isn't alone. Other former colonies retain repressive colonial laws (former British colonies, for example, have internal security acts, dating back to British rule, that are useful in stifling dissent and opposition). This includes the right to demonstrate opposition to a government -- any government -- and the corresponding obligation of the government -- any government -- to uphold that right. Not tolerate. Not limit. Not thwart by brandishing the law. The state has the duty to vigorously protect and uphold that right.
What we have instead, is a state policy of using every means -- the Penal Code with its colonial provisions, the various propaganda organs of the State, the massed batons and riot shields of the police, and even the rifles of the Armed Forces -- to turn any assertion of the public's rights into what the government calls a sinister conspiracy to thwart the rule of law.
I am reminded of the comment a friend made as he watched, on TV, Corazon Aquino and Susan Roces confronted by rows of policemen with riot shields and clubs: "Ah, so that is the rule of law! Two widows requiring the mobilization of thousands of people armed to the teeth, and backed up by water cannon."
I wonder where the rule of law has gone, when a government that claims to have an unquestionable mandate from the people, would rather deny people of permits (read: their right) to rally. And then, the same government that claims to an ironclad right to govern wonders why people opposed to it decide to rally in Makati City. In the first place, Makati is as good a place as any to rally; and becomes the only place to rally when the officials of other cities refuse to issue permits for people to rally in public spaces, such as Rizal Park, the Liwasang Bonifacio and the Quezon Memorial Circle.
I possess certain biases that I continue to uphold unapologetically. The first is that those who benefited from People Power yesterday cannot deny it to anyone today. The second is that the targets of People Power yesterday cannot be the beneficiaries of People Power tomorrow (which may be one reason we don't have People Power today, only rallies). The third is that the opposition to the President is not only a Metro Manila phenomenon.
But I withdraw my objection to rallies, because it's everyone's right to rally for or against something. And why do I get the sinking feeling that those demonized yesterday seemed more willing than today's government (which claims, with such supreme self-confidence, to possess legitimacy) to let the public demonstrate? Perhaps, the explanation is a simple one: as Imelda Marcos once put it, to explain their political and financial success, "some are smarter than others." And we have a government today that is the smartest of all. It recognizes that the true test of the rule of law is that might makes right. As to the only remaining question, which is whether the State has the right to defend itself, the answer must be a clear yes. But defend itself from clenched fists, speeches, protest music and banners (whatever their color may be), with a "calibrated preemptive response"? This is the behavior of a government that recognizes its legitimacy only in its press releases.
