Maximum tolerance

Certainty of punishment is said to be the most effective disincentive to criminality. More than severity of the penalty, empirical studies show that it is the swift and predictable consequence for illegal acts that that has maximum deterrent weight. 

Zero tolerance, specially when illegal drugs are involved, is what we were conditioned to expect from President Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s hatred. No argument nor exception. Now, three years after a blazing start, we find that what has become swift and predictable is not certainty of punishment but certainty of promotion. It is a case of public disservice being its own reward.

Alternate realities. The “levelling up” of Customs Commissioner Isidro Lapena to a Cabinet post, after the most scandalous drug smuggling conspiracy in Philippine history was perpetrated under his watch, is the worst message the President can send to a confused public at this time. An estimated P11.0 billion worth of shabu is now being freely distributed to our children. We are forced to stand by and watch helplessly because someone wasn’t brave enough to stop it.

After the previous Commissioner, Nicanor Faeldon was implicated in a P6.4 billion drug smuggling shenanigan of his own, “one strike” Lapena, a former police general, was supposed to show us how it’s done. The Bureau under him could have been a showcase of competence and a saving grace for the administration. Instead, it has degenerated into a theater of disgrace. PRRD’s own zero tolerance for drugs is now viewed unquestionably as a maximum tolerance for drugs when his personal proteges are incriminated.

Lapena is the second Customs Commissioner, after Faeldon, and the nth member of the official family to be promoted after figuring in spectacular foul ups at their post. There are serious implications here on bribery, corruption, corrupt and ethical practices violations and, at the very least, deficits in the implementation of the law which our legislative and investigative bodies are duty bound to prosecute. The President should stop depleting the goodwill of his high approval rating to shield his surrogates from the accountability they owe the public.

Koko warranto? Atty. Ferdinand Topacio threw Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel, III a curve ball (more a screwball, really) when he invoked Section 4, Article VI on the former Senate President. Come on, Ferdie. Not even a respite for the newlywed? By the way, Congratulations Mr. Senate President and Atty. Kathryna Yu-Pimentel on the happy wedding.

The beef: “No Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected.” Atty. Topacio represents the school of thought that even if Sen. Pres. Koko’s 1st term in the Senate (2007-2013) lasted less than two years only, it already constituted a full term for purposes of the Constitutional consecutive term limit. 

Sen. Pres. Koko spent time in exile from a position that was ultimately declared his. Is this time away to be considered an involuntary renunciation of office and, hence, an interruption in his term? If so, the first term will not be treated as a full one and he can run again next year. 

Recall that Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri, the 12th placer whose election was protested by Sen. Pres. Koko, served for over 4 years of that term before he resigned the office (this leaves a residual issue also on Sen. Zubiri’s prospects should he decide to run again in 2022).

No prior case involving a Senator or Congressman has occasioned an interpretation of this provision. The Topacio position is supported by constitutionalists such as Fr. Joaquin Bernas who has forwarded the view that, in situations of electoral protest, you count even the time that the office is held by the protestee in the column of the eventual protest winner.

In his corner. But Sen. Pres. Koko is not losing sleep. There is ample jurisprudence with regard to other elective officials who have the same proscription on term limits. This is inevitably persuasive in resolving the Topacio disqualification petition. The 2013 Abundo vs Comelec case involved a mayor who was also an electoral protest winner in a previous term. Since he took over only at the tail end, the same was not considered by the Supreme Court as service of a full term.  

The Executive has actually supported this position by administrative interpretation. In CSC-DBM Joint Circular No. 1, s. 2016, the “rules and regulations on grant of step increments to elective officials based on length of service,” Sec. 6.3.3. considers an elective official to have completed his term (6 or 3 years as applicable), for purpose of a one (1) step increment in pay, if: “declared by final and executory judgment as the rightful winner; provided that the official has served more than half of the term.”

Here, again, is another persuasive argument, this time coming from the administrative agencies tasked with jealously guarding who exactly should be entitled to payment from the people’s purse. In their view, at least half a term’s service would qualify one for benefits granted to elective officials who have served an entire term. The less than two years served by the Sen. Pres. of a six-year term obviously doesn’t even entitle him to the one step increment.

National Treasure. I don’t know if this was the part purposely written for him to play in the song of life. For virtually his entire existence, this man has been a driving force behind the elevation of Original Pilipino Music. A single minded dedication to the craft with an unquestionable genius that has resonated across genres and generations, the selection of Maestro Ryan Cayabyab as National Artist for Music deserves the acclaim it has earned from an approving public. Well done, Maestro. Congratulations also to Mrs. C and your equally beautiful and talented family!