Revgov after foul bait?
This article today is in response to a text message I received in relation to my article last Sunday “Queen’s Gambit”. His message was laconic but behind the economy of his words, I perceived sincerity. Per the text sender, he has no background in chess and so he couldn’t make heads or tails on what “Queen’s Gambit” was about in relation to the unfolding socio-political scene I wrote about arising from the ABS-CBN franchise scene. He would have preferred my using a basketball term because that, accordingly, is his sport. To accommodate him, albeit belatedly, I am using FOUL BAIT.
Let me do a fast break by setting forth what I mean by foul bait in this context. After this starter statement, I will recall historical data to serve as the basis of my foresight of a revolutionary government. I will say so with the fervent prayer that I’m wrong in my assessment.
In basketball, a player with the ball and angling for a shot feigns a move so that the opposing player guarding him makes a move leading to a foul, more often giving the ball handler free foul throws. I believe that both the quo warranto case filed against the ABS-CBN and the delay of Congress in tackling their franchise renewal are in the nature of the administration’s foul baits.
Even if the Supreme Court described the martial law regime of Ferdinand Marcos as “constitutional authoritarianism”, the Marcos rule was a form of a revolutionary government, remember that the constitutionally-allowed stay of Marcos in Malacañang was up to the end of his second term, 1973, his first term being 1965-1969 and 1969-1973, the second. Marcos said the martial law that he declared in September 1972, was his supposed constitutional response to the deteriorating peace and order condition of the country caused by massive rallies, unabated killings, and insurgency. As we read from our history, Marcos perpetuated his power beyond his constitutional mandate initially through a revolutionary form of government.
He who lives by the sword perishes by the sword, an old proverb, told upon the Marcos regime. Another president, Corazon Aquino, replaced Marcos. Aquino’s ascent was not anchored on the Constitution and that was why it was called a revolutionary government.
Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution ratified by the Filipinos on February 2, 1987, President Rodrigo Duterte can serve for one six-year term without re-election. His stay in Malacañang will only be up to noon of June 30, 2022. But a revolutionary government, if so availed of, may perpetuate his power. How may it be invoked?
There’s no plausible explanation to the inordinate delay of Congress to take up the pending renewal of ABS-CBN’s franchise other than a grave insult apparently committed by the network against the then presidential candidate. Viewed from the growing sentiment of the people in social media and in old-fashioned rallies and marches, in exponential numbers, we are agitated by the inaction of Congress. Our sense of fairness is extremely challenged. Then, came the quo warranto case. I believe this court action was initiated primarily to provide a justification for Congress to refuse to tackle the franchise renewal and secondly, but more importantly, to cancel the franchise. It looks to me that my feeling injustice is shared by others.
Is it unthinkable for me then to imagine that the quo warranto case and Congress’ delay in attending to the franchise renewal are aimed at agitating the people enough to be tumultuous and make the same as grounds for establishing a revolutionary government of any form? Queen’s Gambit or Foul Bait?
- Latest
