Neither a revolutionary gov’t nor martial law

I, among others, have advocated for revolutionary government so government reforms can be speeded up and not be overtaken by events that will return the status quo we are trying to correct. But Duterte himself explained his style of governance and he remains determined not to use either a revolutionary government or martial law if he can accomplish his program of government using neither.

He will make do with governing the country with the intent of reform, with the institutions that he inherited from past presidents, the worse of which was from his immediate predecessor, Noynoy Aquino III, who read beautiful speeches but left our nation building in shambles.

That is a tough job but Duterte is his own person and with a strong character he is willing to give it a try and fix our nation in a better state than Aquino had left it.

So far his style of government is working. And this he articulated in a speech before Filipino and Israeli businessmen in his visit to Jerusalem. Again he was criticized for making friends with a country described as highhanded and inhumane toward Palestinians. But didn’t he say he would make friends with all countries if it was for the good of the Philippines?

He talked on the progress of the war on drugs and how to end the Moro and communist insurgencies. But he did not reckon that the most problematic was Filipinos themselves (at least some of them, I may add). He put his style of governance into practice as clearly as he can staying close to the realities of Philippine politics while using his presidential power to get things done faced with the Trillanes caper and obstructionism of the Senate.

“You cannot do good. It’s always wrong. And so we will just have to navigate where democracy allows us a space to work and produce results,” he said.

While he does not consider rich Filipinos as his enemies, the President said “they are the ones who are almost offended by my behavior.” From the day he launched his candidacy for the presidency mainstream media (mostly owned by oligarchs or supported by former colonizers chiefly the United States) Duterte was attacked for his “brash style and provocative language” that critics say are unbecoming of a head of state. Maybe. But I think that is part of the change he wants to make – that we build our nation based on substance and not on fripperies of book learned etiquette.

To these criticisms, the President said that he never studied to be a statesman.

“I was just a small town mayor. And I was never able to separate my personality because I am not a split personality. I never transform into something like a town mayor and being president,” said Duterte, a longtime mayor of Davao City.

“And so I have a bad mouth. I curse, I throw epithets a lot when I’m angry.” But we have also seen him change tack and apologize for remarks said in haste and anger.

The crowds of ordinary Filipinos loved it and defended him as “being on our side” because he lives like us and talks like us. That was the key of his astounding victory in a country built by aristocratic hypocrisy and praised by social climbers. He is not one of them.

According to the SWS, 72 percent of those polled were satisfied with the government’s performance, 15 percent were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and 13 percent were dissatisfied. Not bad for the problems he had to face to carry out his program of reform. As I said yesterday it is not Trillanes, he is just political crap, it is the useless institution of the Senate with members elected at large.

For the background on martial law, I go by the simple definition that the military takes over government. That is obviously what he is trying hard to avoid. He needs military support for peace and order but he is vigilant that civilian supremacy must be defended and protected. (In my opinion that was not Marcos style who used the military to give him absolute powers.)

“Martial law is the imposition of direct military control of normal civilian functions of government, especially in response to a temporary emergency such as invasion or major disaster, or in an occupied territory.

“Martial law has also been imposed during conflicts, and in cases of occupations, where the absence of any other civil government provides for an unstable population.

“Typically, the imposition of martial law accompanies curfews; the suspension of civil law, civil rights, and habeas corpus; and the application or extension of military law or military justice to civilians. Civilians defying martial law may be subjected to military tribunal (court-martial).” (Sourced from Wikipedia)

A revolutionary government is different from martial law and I concur with the view of Fr. Ranlilio Aquino that “A revolutionary government involves setting aside the Constitution and its institutions and governing by the fiat of only one person. In fact, in terms of government, there was no difference between Marcos’ martial law where laws came into force by presidential decree and Ms. Aquino’s 1986 government that saw her governing by executive order.

Under a constitutional order, this dangerous equation is avoided by the mediation of the Constitution – written or unwritten.

True but he adds that “While it remains a political (non-legal) option, it is something we should entertain only in extremis and about which every thoughtful Filipino should be doubly reticent!”

There may indeed come a time that Duterte will have no recourse but declare a revolutionary government to get things done and all Filipinos who want reform should support him when the time comes.