Another undeclared war?

Speaker Joe de Venecia virtually declared war against the Senate (see our last column) as he doggedly pursues a process of Constitutional change which will result in a unicameral, parliamentary form of government. But has President GMA now declared war too against the entire Congress?

This was how some congressmen read the President’s Executive Order No. 464 requiring Cabinet members and other administration officials to seek her prior approval before appearing in any hearing called by either House of Congress, and an order she issued as commander-in-chief directing all officers and personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to obtain her clearance before appearing in such hearings.

These twin directives caught senators and congressmen off-guard. The President can, of course, argue that as head of the executive department, which includes both the AFP and the Philippine National Police, she can issue orders which enables her to better "coordinate" such appearances and avoid the kind of harassment National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales allegedly received at the hands of Senate inquisitors.

However, the orders are regarded as yet another effort to enmesh administration officials and all men in uniform in a grand conspiracy of silence and continuing cover-up. The issues do not only revolve around alleged fraud committed in the last elections, in which military men supposedly participated. The search for the truth also concerns certain acts and transactions which GMA’s best and brightest handled, including the controversial Venable contract and the allegedly anomalous North Rail deal.

The Senators and Congressmen argue that under Article VI of the Constitution, either House may conduct hearings in aid of legislation (Sec. 21) and may request the "heads of departments" to appear and be heard "on any matter pertaining to their departments," the so-called Question Hour (Sec. 22). In neither case is the consent or prior clearance of the President required, except in the case of the Question Hour when the appearance is upon the initiative of the department head.

In inquiries in aid of legislation, the Constitution requires that the "rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected." During a Question Hour, unlike inquiries in aid of legislation, the Constitution specifically mandates: "When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing (itals. ours), the appearance shall be conducted in executive session." In neither instance does it allow the President to instruct the department head or "persons appearing" not to appear.

The AFP declared in a hastily-called press conference that Brig. Gen. Francisco Gudani, assistant superintendent of the Philippine Military Academy, and Lt. Col. Alexander Balutan, PMA assistant commandant of cadets, were relieved of their posts and will be charged before a court martial because of their disobedience to a lawful order by a superior officer, in this case the commander-in-chief herself.

The actions were not taken, AFP chief of staff General Generoso Senga stressed, because of the testimony they gave before the Senate hearing on the Garci tapes. Nor, I take it, did the sanctions have anything to do with the rumors that immediately circulated through text messages that Gudani was an agent of Sen. Panfilo Lacson and a supporter of Fernando Poe Jr., and that the former Marine field commander had amassed unexplained wealth. The demolition squad seemed to kick into action even as Gudani and Balutan were testifying in the Senate.

Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita claims the President issued E.O. 464 because of what happened to Secretary Bert Gonzales. That, it seems to me, was an overstatement of Sec. Bert’s case. While the verbal lashing he got was clearly not the Senate’s finest hour, and in my view did exceed the bounds of civility, he himself was not above blame.

Gonzales did not distinguish himself in that Senate hearing, clearly dissembled about the Venable contract, and gave every indication he was concealing information he had in his possession. All told, his treatment, by itself, did not in my view warrant the President’s launching an all-out confrontation with the Congress.

She could have either insisted that the Senate respect the National Security Adviser’s rights, or requested that he give testimony in executive session on grounds of national security or public interest, depending on whether she felt that the inquiry involving him was in aid of legislation or an appearance in connection with the Question Hour. That, not drawing a line in the sand, would have been the logical next step.

The Malacanang spinmeisters also lament that the continuing Senate and House hearings on the Garci tapes, the Venable lobbying contract and the North Rail project are all part of an indirect effort to resurrect the failed impeachment attempt.

The flaw in that stance, aside from its being somewhat self-serving, is that the common thread running through these issues is a Congress in difficult and often frustrating pursuit of the truth. In that search, the executive officials concerned could be very helpful by simply providing requested information. Instead, Malacanang itself has been circling the wagons and serving up dubious legal arguments on separation of powers, executive privilege and even the physical and mental stress placed on officials called to testify in the hearings.

I know there are those in the Palace who are convinced that the presidency is under siege and that the incumbent is entitled to do everything in her power to defeat those who seek to oust her, whether they be in the halls of Congress, in executive board rooms or out there in the streets. I would have no problem with that, if it was clear to me that what we have here is an indubitably elected leader of the people staunchly defending herself against destabilizers, usurpers and ideologues.

Unfortunately, that is not the public perception of what’s happening here. Even among GMA’s supporters, the concern is that too many things remain unexplained, that a shroud of secrecy and a vague stench of corruption infect many government transactions.

The issues, in other words, are not separation of powers, not executive privilege, not even civility in the House or Senate. At stake here are transparency, candor and truth. This condition will not be remedied by executive gag orders which leave government functionaries artificially deaf, dumb and blind.