Miriam: Supreme Court decision has institutionalized coups

The Supreme Court’s (SC) unanimous ruling dismissing former President Joseph Estrada’s claim to the presidency has institutionalized coup d’état as a means of installing a president.

This was the claim of re-electionist Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, who said that "the Supreme Court decision on legitimacy (of the administration of President Arroyo) has scant basis in constitutional law."

"The extremely unfortunate result is that the Court has legitimized a president who was never elected as president by the Filipino voters. The result is a diminution of constitutional democracy," Santiago said in a statement.

Santiago echoed the argument Estrada used in a petition asking the SC to declare him as a "temporarily incapacitated" president on leave while Arroyo is only president in an acting capacity.

"President Estrada never actually resigned. The Supreme Court merely construed his departure from Malacañang Palace as a resignation," she said.

Santiago, a former trial court judge and professor of constitutional law at the University of the Philippines, also accused the high tribunal of "grave abuse of discretion" in upholding the legitimacy of the Arroyo administration.

"I respectfully submit that it was a grave abuse of discretion for the Court to invent a completely new concept — what I would call the hitherto unheard-of concept of constructive resignation," she said.

"It is basic that when the Constitution is clear, we should not interpret. The Charter clearly contemplates that the president’s resignation should be voluntary and unequivocal. For if the resignation is involuntary, then what takes place is not a resignation but a coup d’état," she added.

Santiago also cited "moral theology," which, she said, "teaches that so-called ‘people power’ as a means of changing the country’s leader can be used only against a dictatorship, and not against a democratically elected president."

"Otherwise, ‘people power’ could be used by the wealthy few to veto the will of the majority who are poor. In that case, ‘people power’ is merely a synonym for political feudalism," she added.

Citing herself as a lawyer, former judge, and UP law professor for 10 years, Santiago said she will "bring this case directly to the Filipino masses."

"The Supreme Court may be the court of last resort, but even the Court is subject to the judgment of the masses in their sovereign capacity," she said.

She said the forthcoming May 14 congressional and local elections will be "unique" in Philippine political history because it will turn out to be a "referendum" on the correctness of the SC ruling.

"In effect, this campaign is a referendum on the Court decision as well as on the incumbent administration," she said, also echoing Estrada’s appeals to social classes.

"The battle lines are drawn," Santiago said. "This is a campaign of the rich versus the poor. Should the few who are rich be granted a veto power over the majority who are poor? Shall we follow the rule of the majority, or the rule of the elite?"