Rev-gov, anyone?

In the simplest terms, a revolutionary government is one that doesn’t follow the written constitution of a country. A government where leaders disregard constitutional order of the state. More often than not, revolutionary leaders assume power by reason of force rather than by the force of reason. It isn’t difficult to point to the times in our political history, when we had our share of revolutionary governments.

Ferdinand Marcos rose to power under a constitution that limited the term of a president to four years with one re-election. Marcos was elected in 1965 by defeating Diosdado Macapagal. Marcos’ four-year term ended in 1969. He ran for re-election and won. I remember Da Apo’s pervasive propaganda machinery called National Media Production Center housed at the second floor of the Capitol building, headed by Eugenio Labella, now deceased. Marcos’ second term was to expire in 1973.

As we all know, Marcos declared martial law in September 1972, just a little over one year before he was supposed to step down. If we were to read again the whereas clauses of Proclamation 1081, the instrument declaring martial law, we could find the alleged constitutional basis for the proclamation; to save our country from lawless elements. Nowhere did he mention that his rule, as our president, was soon to end. Marcos didn’t step down in 1973. Going back to our simplistic definition of a revolutionary government as one not following a constitution, the Marcos regime was one, no doubt even if a docile Supreme Court called it “constitutional authoritarianism.”

Corazon Aquino became our president after the People Power Revolution. Her iconic leadership was supposedly founded on the most noble of all political motivations - that of saving our country from a ruthless regime. But the fact is her presidency didn’t go through a constitutional process. Her assumption as president was in total disregard to the 1973 Constitution which, incidentally, the Supreme Court (?), in a master stroke of vagueness, ruled to have been politically ratified. Historically speaking then, Marcos in 1973 and Aquino in 1986 ruled in revolutionary governments. What a paradox!

I have to recall this political law term, revolutionary government, in the light of some recent seemingly disjointed events. First, there was this lengthy social media report that used the term “RevGov.” If not for my impression that the originator didn’t inspire belief, I would have accepted the view that President Rodrigo Duterte is planning to launch a revolutionary government which, using his war on drugs as a standard, can be brutal and ruthless. So I treated that social media item as fake news. But there was another report about Duterte’s pushing for the construction of two dams in Luzon supposedly to be funded by a loan from China. The objective in undertaking the project is not unlike the predicates to Marcos’ martial law and to Aquino’s People Power --to save Metro Manilans from drought. Duterte wants to bring potable water to these Luzonians.

In an interview, Duterte showed his undivided focus to finish the project. He wouldn’t want anybody to delay it. Not even a probability of a litigation daunts him. He warned the judiciary against issuing a temporary restraining order should a case ensue. Conscious that ours is a government of laws and aware that in our system, the judiciary is co-equal to the executive, I couldn’t imagine any president making such a warning that undermines our constitutional framework, except if he is trying to condition our minds to a probable revolutionary government. Is he?