On the Occasion of the Muslim Bar Association of the Philippines' Conference on
"Political Stability Under the Aquino Administration"
1:30 PM
10 October 2014
Diamond Hotel Ballroom
Ermita Manila
SPEECH
delivered by
LEILA M. DE LIMA
Secretary
As-salamu alaykum!
Good afternoon to all of you - esteemed officers and members of
the Muslim Bar Association of the Philippines and the United Filipino
Movement.
Political stability in the Aquino Administration is not really a muchdiscussed
subject. In fact, this is the first time that I have encountered a
whole conference whose theme revolved around the issue of whether or
not political stability is a reality that we enjoy under the present
Administration. For me, there is no question about it. The Philippine
government and economy are at their most stable conditions in all of the
Post-EDSA administrations, barring none, including that of President
Fidel Ramos.
Among the post-ED SA administrations, we only experienced actual
political stability during the Ramos and PNoy Administrations. The Cory
Administration was the most unfortunate with ten (10) attempted coups,
followed by the Arroyo Administration with five (5) civilian-military
1
UprISIngs, and the short-lived Estrada Administration with its
presidential impeachment trial and the only successful civilian-military
uprising since the February 1986 EDSA Revolution. Thus, measured by
these standards, raising the issue of political instability even at this point
of the Aquino Administration is a bit of an exaggeration and a misreading
of the current political landscape.
Let me elaborate further with a characterization of the most serious
political crises that beset the Aquino Administration, and compare them
with the invariably armed challenges directly raised against the other
post -EDSA administrations. While the first can be described at their
worst as issue-based political crises, the second can be considered as
direct attempts at regime change. Herein lies the big difference between
political stability in the present government and political instability as we
knew it in the Cory, Estrada, and Arroyo Administrations.
First, I will discuss what I consider to be the worst political crises
encountered by the PNoy Administration that remotely threatened the
nation's political stability. The first is the Luneta Hostage-taking incident
that occurred at the very start of the PNoy Administration. The second is
the Sabah incursion incident launched by the self-styled Royal Sultanate
Army of Sulu and North Borneo. The third is the Zamboanga City Attack
carried out by the MNLF-Misuari faction.
Then I will contextualize these three crises using the past
administrations' corresponding records of political crises, mainly
consisting of civilian-military uprisings and coup d' etats.
On August 23, 2010, a retired Manila police officer, Police Chief
Inspector Rolando Mendoza, took hostage a busload of Hongkong
tourists and held them captive for almost half a day in Luneta. The
hostage-taking incident was witnessed by the whole nation and the world
as media descended upon the scene of the incident and broadcast live
feed of the drama all through the day. The hostage-taking ultimately
resulted in the killing of eight hostages and the hostage-taker, and
strained relations with Hongkong.
More than two years later, on February 13, 2013, around 300
armed members of the so-called Royal Sultanate Army of Sulu and North
Borneo landed on Lahad Datu in Sabah, Malaysia to reclaim North
Borneo for the Sultanate of Sulu. While the Malaysian government tried
to negotiate with the invaders by demanding a peaceful surrender, their
self-styled leader, Sultan Jamahlul Kiram, faced the national and world
2
media in his headquarters in Taguig City calling on the Aquino
Government to support the Sultanate's claim over Sabah. The crisis
lasted for a month with the killing and capture of the Sultanate Army by
Malaysian forces and the arrest of around 30 members of said army by
the Philippine Navy off Tawi-tawi.
Only six months later, in August 2013, Nur Misuari declared
Mindanao an independent republic, thereby founding the Mindanao
Independence Movement (MIM). The Mindanao Independence
Movement was to further hold rallies and assemblies in other parts of
Mindanao in order to proclaim Mindanao independence. On September
9, 2013, 500 MNLF fighters who planned to raise the MNLF
independence flag in front of the Zamboanga City Hall held around 200
civilians hostage and engaged government forces in a battle that was to
last for the rest of the month. This resulted in the burning of Zamboanga
City and the death of civilians, soldiers, and most of the insurgents.
These three incidents comprise what I consider to be the three
major political crises that beset the Aquino Administration in the past
four years.
Compared to the rest of the post -EDSA Administrations, these
incidents are nothing as emerging threats to the political stability of the
government. In terms of serious threats to political stability, the PNoy
Administration is more like the Ramos Administration because of the
absence of such threats, when compared to the governments of
Presidents Cory, Estrada, and Arroyo which were regularly assaulted with
civilian and military uprisings. It is only during the Ramos and PNoy
administrations that the Philippine government was not threatened by a
military coup d' etat or a massive mobilization of civilians directly calling
for the ouster of the sitting President or the change of administration.
This is the context of my discussion on the state of political stability
under the PNoy Administration.
From 1986 to 1990, not less than 10 destabilization incidents
beleaguered the Cory government. These included the July 1986 Manila
Hotel Plot, the November 1986 "God Save the Queen" plot, the January
1987 GMA 7 incident, the April 1987 Black Saturday incident, the July
1987 MIA plot, the August 1987 coup attempt which left 53 dead, the
January 1989 Rizal Alih siege in Zamboanga City, the December 1989
coup which almost succeeded, the March 1990 Hotel Delfino coup led by
Cagayan Governor Rodolfo Aguinaldo, and the October 1990 Mindanao
coup attempt led by General Danilo Lim.
3
On the part of the Estrada Administration, we all know that
President Erap did not survive the so-called EDSA 2 uprising in January
2001. Erap was forced to leave Malacafiang after the military led by AFP
Chief of Staff General Angelo Reyes withdrew its support from the
Estrada Administration to back the assumption into office of President
Arroyo.
Political instability during the Arroyo administration immediately
started with the May 1 Riot cum Rebellion, also know as EDSA Tres,
when Erap supporters protested the arrest of Erap with a siege of
Malacafiang on May 1, 2001. This was later followed by the Oakwood
Mutiny in July 2003 when the "Magdalo" rebels led by Navy Lieutenant
Senior Grade Antonio Trillanes occupied the Oakwood apartments in
Ayala Center, Makati.
The next significant threat that faced the Arroyo Administration
took place in the wake of the "Hello Garci" Scandal, when 7 prominent
cabinet members and 3 heads of agencies, dubbed as the Hyatt 10,
resigned their positions in the Arroyo government in July 2005. The
Hyatt 10 were backed by a civilian mobilization at the Makati Central
Business District calling for the military's withdrawal of support from the
Arroyo government. The mobilization ended when President Ramos
threw his support behind Arroyo and the military followed suit.
However, less than a year later, in February 2006, the Arroyo
administration was again under siege by a military-civilian uprising that
ended with the capitulation to the government of the Philippine Marines
Brigade stationed at Fort Bonifacio. Finally, in November 2007, members
of the "Magdalo" group led by Trillanes and General Lim walked-out of
their trial, marched through the streets of Makati, and occupied the
Manila Peninsula Hotel at the Ayala Business District. The mutiny ended
when the military attacked the mutineers and media people camped
inside the hotel and arrested them.
Compared to the political crises that directly threatened the hold on
power of the Cory, Estrada and Arroyo Administrations, the three major
political crises experienced by the Aquino government definitely appear
to be much less in gravity in terms of generating political instability. By
now, the standards of political instability in the Philippines are to be
measured by the number of coups, civilian uprisings, mutinies, and
rebellions that characterized all but two administrations of post- EDSA
Philippines. By these standards, the PNoy government is one of the most
4
politically stable, if not the most politically stable administration,
together with the Ramos Administration. Not a single coup, civilian
uprising, military rebellion or mutiny occurred within the past four years
of the PNoy Administration.
Thus, for all intents and purposes, the qualitative distinction
between the political instability of the past administrations and the
political stability being experienced in the present administration is selfevident.
Whatever military threats were raised in the past or even at
present against the PNoy Administration are at most political nuisances
and publicity stunts. These include the July 2011 broadcast and appeal of
Col. Generoso Mariano for the overthrow of President Aquino as well as
the latest manifesto of former GMA officials and bishops calling for a
regime change.
The only remote threat against the Aquino government that exists
now is the so-called National Transformation Council led by Norberto
Gonzales and other GMA sycophants. However, as it is mostly composed
of GMA lackeys and other politically discredited individuals and groups,
and without any real legitimacy issue to cast upon President Aquino, it is
doubtful that this movement can gather enough support to trigger
dissension within the ranks of the military.
Political stability does not necessarily mean the lack of political
challenges against the government, whether in the form of rallies or mass
demonstrations. This is all part and parcel of a vibrant and functioning
democratic polity where the people directly participate in the debate of
the most urgent issues in Philippine society. This includes the exercise by
the media of their freedom of expression to the fullest extent possible
without any form of restraint from the government. This also includes the
exercise by civil society organizations, people's organizations, political
parties and movements, and non-government organizations of their
rights and freedoms under the Constitution in terms of direct
participation in the formulation of government policies and in political
decision-making.
So when people gather in plazas and freedom parks, or congregate
at Luneta or EDSA, a true democratic and legitimate government will not
see political instability. It will see these acts as evidence of a fully
functioning democratic and stable society where every citizen is
guaranteed his or her right to freely participate in the affairs of the
government in whatever peaceful and legitimate way he may deem to do
so. Political stability includes the fullest exercise of freedom and
5
democracy. Political stability in a democracy does not mean the
imposition of fascist discipline and totalitarian order, as some of us may
glorify with false reminiscences of martial law peace and order.
Remember that martial law only brought the peace of the graveyard, and
order among the tortured, killed, and disappeared.
In this sense, not even the impassioned debate on the passage of
the RH Law in Congress and the subsequent deliberations on its
constitutionality in the Supreme Court succeeded in making a dent on the
country's political stability. For all its apocalyptic warnings, the Catholic
Church failed to drive a wedge between the government and its people on
this issue that was ultimately settled by the Supreme Court through a
class act of political compromise.
Not even the DAP issue which posed a serious challenge to the
administration's fiscal management policies and thrusts spelled a serious
threat to the government, despite concerted media and opposition
hysterics that the DAP funds were pocketed by administration officials
and congressmen.
Not even the million people march against PDAF, eventually
hijacked by the extreme left, the political opposition, and GMA allies
including GMA bishops and priests, threatened political stability because
of the people's faith in the President as their staunchest ally in the
campaign against the misuse of public funds.
Political stability also does not mean the absence of debate and
institutional engagement between the executive, the legislative, and the
judicial branches of government. The normal course of activities in
government demands the exercise of the checks and balance powers of
the three branches on each other. In this sense, political stability in the
Aquino government is self-evident in the vibrant check and balance being
practiced by the three branches of government. So when the judiciary
declares the DAP unconstitutional, and the executive challenges this
decision and moves for its reconsideration, and Congress seeks to
introduce amendatory legislation to cure the unconstitutionality, there is
no political instability, only dynamism in our democracy as exercised by
the three separate branches of our government.
In asking whether the judiciary overreached its power and
authority by declaring the DAP unconstitutional, the President merely
exercised the power of check and balance of the Executive over the
Judiciary. Indeed, it is time to revisit the power of judicial review,
6
especially the expanded power to decide political questions under the
Court's authority to determine grave abuse of discretion on the part of
any official or agency of the government. It must be remembered that this
expanded power is not inherent in the power of judicial review.
Therefore, limiting this power without emasculating the inherent power
of judicial review of the Supreme Court is possible. It will not undermine
the judiciary as an independent branch. Introducing such possibility in
public debate will not create political instability as warned by hysterical
political observers and members of the opposition.
Political stability is not the absence of conflicts, disagreements and
misunderstandings in the course of steering our country towards
progress and development. It is the absence of violence in all these forms
of political contests. This is why we have elections, debates, legal
processes, litigation and court proceedings, and peace negotiations as the
preferred modes of settling conflicts and disputes.
In this respect, the Aquino government has paved the way for
lasting peace and political stability in Mindanao with the signing of the
peace agreement with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and continuous
engagement and consultations with the mainstream of the Moro National
Liberation Front. The passage of the Basic Bangsamoro Law will further
bring the country a step closer to full political stability, especially in
Mindanao. Autonomy and self-determination of the Bangsamoro will
bring the country closer to peace and progress in the South and assure
the Bangsamoro people that their own destiny is intertwined with the rest
of the nation's fate and future. We are a people of many peoples with a
common history of colonialism and struggle for liberation. Herein lies
our strength and dynamism. The sooner we realize this the sooner we can
catch up with our more prosperous neighbors in the Southeast Asian
regIOn.
The Philippines cannot move forward without its Muslim brethren.
Only when we realize that the Bangsamoro struggle is the struggle of all
freedom-loving Filipinos shall we finally come to an understanding of
peace in Mindanao. Together with this peace we shall attain prosperity
through economic self-sufficiency and the equitable distribution of
Mindanao's wealth among all its peoples, Muslims, Christians, and
Lumads. Indeed, the final challenge of political stability to this
Administration is its capability to finally bring peace and economic
development in Mindanao. If it is able to achieve this together with the
MILF and other leaders of Muslim Mindanao, there will be no greater
testament to political stability under the Aquino Administration.
7
Finally, one of the greatest factors of political stability is none other
than the efficient and impartial delivery of justice. The Aquino
Administration was able to weather its own political crises and prevented
these from causing political instability because of its consistent pursuit of
the "Tuwid na Daan" or the Straight Path. The achievements of President
Aquino along this line include the arrest of President Arroyo on various
charges of electoral sabotage, corruption and plunder, the replacement of
the Ombudsman, the impeachment of the Chief Justice, the investigation
and filing of charges against Senators, Congressmen and executive
officials involved in the Napoles PDAF and Malampaya Fund Scam, the
capture of General J ovito Palparan, and the removal from public
positions of executive officials with questionable integrity.
These actions, coupled with the President's own record and
reputation for honesty and integrity, preserved the public's trust in his
administration even four years after his assumption to office. Even when
his trust and approval ratings declined from a high of 70 percent at the
start of his term to the current low of 55 percent four years after, his
current approval and trust ratings are still the highest for any post-EDSA
President past his mid-term. Undoubtedly, the President has maintained
more than a majority of the people's trust and confidence all throughout
his term.
This record is mainly responsible for the political stability enjoyed
by the President and his administration despite the occasional political
crises that come along, including the DAP decision of the Supreme Court.
It is also the reason why groups calling for his ouster, either through
impeachment or outright removal, coming from the extreme left
comprised of the Makabayan bloc in Congress and the extreme right
comprised of GMA allies from the military and the church, have failed to
gain traction in the public pulse.
Aside from these vested interest groups, nobody among the people
seems to be eager to replace a clean, honest and corruption-free
President with a successor who is currently hard-pressed defending
himself and his family from persistent allegations of systemic corruption
as mayors of the country's richest city. Insofar as the people are
concerned, there is no question that this administration is far better than
its predecessors, and definitely more preferable than what awaits down
the line of succession. The people simply find no real alternative to this
administration or a cause for regime change, not only because the
alternatives are far worse, but because the Aquino Administration still
8
represents the best chance for achieving political, economic and social
reforms during this transition towards the era of Philippine
modernization.
These, therefore, are the foundations of the resilient political
stability the country is experiencing under the Aquino Administration:
the President's unquestioned legitimacy as the most popularly elected
President in post-EDSA history, the people's continuing trust and
confidence in his mandate and integrity, and the lack of credibility and
the questionable motives of the political groups that continue to
undermine him without any success.
As a result, the Philippine State has never been more politically
stable than it is at present. Government is intact. People's confidence in
the President is still the highest among past Presidents despite the recent
post mid-term decline. Public trust in the President's anti-corruption
drive is still sustained despite some minor setbacks. And economic
indicators consistently project recovery and international confidence on
sound financial and fiscal management policies that spurred record GDP
growth in the past four years.
So what is the message that can be culled from all these lessons on
how this government has achieved political stability in the past four
years?
For the second time in our post-EDSA history, the people are again
talking about continuity: continuity in clean and honest governance and
the fight against corruption, continuity in a leadership with unquestioned
moral integrity, continuity in policies that prioritize the poor and
marginalized, and continuity in the principles of democracy and
modernization. In 1992, the people hoped for continuity in a leadership
that would follow through with the country's transition back to a
democratic and open society. The same call for continuity in leadership
was not felt in the 1998 and, especially, in the 2010 elections. That is,
until now.
The message of continuity in our country's march towards
modernization has never been more urgent than it is now as we approach
the 2016 Presidential Elections. This message of continuity is the clearest
testament to our present political stability and advancement from a
Banana Republic to a strong State. The people are concerned about not
wasting the many advances in political reforms and economic growth
that were achieved in the past four years. The people want more of the
9
good thing. They are very much wary of going back to the old ways of
corruption, patronage, and weak State mechanisms that undermine
political stability and the people's trust in their government.
Our generation must be reminded of the wasted opportunity that
was the last 10 years of the Arroyo Administration. For most of us, the
decade of 2000-2010 should have been the most productive years of our
short lives in this world. What we lost in those ten years we have tried to
regain and rebuild in the past four years. We cannot afford to lose
another ten, or even just six years, to another corrupt and mismanaged
administration. We must continue the legacy of honesty and integrity
that this President and this administration have fought so hard to
institutionalize.
Let me close by saying that, despite all that has been said so far, it
doesn't mean that the Aquino Administration is left with nothing more to
do or strive for.
Lest I leave you with the impression that I am of the belief that we
have reached the zenith of political and democratic stability, or that the
level of stability we have achieved thus far was so easily gained and will
so easily be sustained and further intensified, I will candidly be the first
to admit that the last four years haven't been perfect.
I am not, by any means, suggesting that this Administration can
now rest on its laurels.
All that has been done can be undone, and the strong and resilient
political fabric it has woven can be unraveled, if it does not prove that it
can continue to proceed down this straight and narrow path, regardless
of who might find themselves in the crosshairs of the Law.
It is no secret that the Administration has, at times, been
beleaguered by issues that raise serious questions about the integrity, not
of the President himself, but those who are supposed to be his allies in
espousing the tenets of good governance, in the fight against corruption,
and in upholding the Rule of Law.
These issues, by themselves, will not bring this Administration
down. Trust me, when our ongoing investigation into the PDAF and
Malampaya Fund Scams first emerged in the media, there were those
who warned that we, in the Department of Justice, are treading
dangerous ground that would bring the government down because of the
10
stature of those alleged to be involved. But, even then, I had better faith
in the Filipino people and the Philippine government than that. I
believed that the Truth should come out and, once it does, it will
empower the nation, rather than destroy it.
More than a year hence, our government is still going strong and,
though the going might be rough for some, ultimately, all that has
happened has breathed new life into people's hope for a better future.
That, to me, is enough to prove those doomsayers wrong because. After
all, it is the people's interests that matter, not the interests of those who
had plundered the public coffers for too long while plaYing us for fools.
So, no, issues of integrity involving members of this Administration
will not bring it down.
However, they provide a challenge and a test for this
Administration. It is how we proceed from these allegations and issues
that will ultimately decide whether this Administration can keep the trust
and confidence of the Filipino people. He has weathered a lot, and has
come out on top because people still truly believe that his integrity is
beyond question and he has the best of intentions. But earning and
maintaining the people's trust and confidence is not a victory that is
easily achieved. It can, even now, be lost if the people aren't convinced
that Justice will be delivered withoutfear orfavor.
The Administration may have won several skirmishes in the past
four years, but the struggle is never really finished. The fight for political
stability is never-ending, and the PNoy Administration must prove equal
to the challenge until the very end of its term. It must prove its
commitment to the Tuwid na Daan, not once, twice, or even a hundred
times, but each and every, single time.
There could and should be no exceptions.
After all, there is really no alternative to the Straight Path. Our
children deserve no less. In its old and fading years, our own generation
deserves no less.
Maraming salamat po.
11
"Political Stability Under the Aquino Administration"
1:30 PM
10 October 2014
Diamond Hotel Ballroom
Ermita Manila
SPEECH
delivered by
LEILA M. DE LIMA
Secretary
As-salamu alaykum!
Good afternoon to all of you - esteemed officers and members of
the Muslim Bar Association of the Philippines and the United Filipino
Movement.
Political stability in the Aquino Administration is not really a muchdiscussed
subject. In fact, this is the first time that I have encountered a
whole conference whose theme revolved around the issue of whether or
not political stability is a reality that we enjoy under the present
Administration. For me, there is no question about it. The Philippine
government and economy are at their most stable conditions in all of the
Post-EDSA administrations, barring none, including that of President
Fidel Ramos.
Among the post-ED SA administrations, we only experienced actual
political stability during the Ramos and PNoy Administrations. The Cory
Administration was the most unfortunate with ten (10) attempted coups,
followed by the Arroyo Administration with five (5) civilian-military
1
UprISIngs, and the short-lived Estrada Administration with its
presidential impeachment trial and the only successful civilian-military
uprising since the February 1986 EDSA Revolution. Thus, measured by
these standards, raising the issue of political instability even at this point
of the Aquino Administration is a bit of an exaggeration and a misreading
of the current political landscape.
Let me elaborate further with a characterization of the most serious
political crises that beset the Aquino Administration, and compare them
with the invariably armed challenges directly raised against the other
post -EDSA administrations. While the first can be described at their
worst as issue-based political crises, the second can be considered as
direct attempts at regime change. Herein lies the big difference between
political stability in the present government and political instability as we
knew it in the Cory, Estrada, and Arroyo Administrations.
First, I will discuss what I consider to be the worst political crises
encountered by the PNoy Administration that remotely threatened the
nation's political stability. The first is the Luneta Hostage-taking incident
that occurred at the very start of the PNoy Administration. The second is
the Sabah incursion incident launched by the self-styled Royal Sultanate
Army of Sulu and North Borneo. The third is the Zamboanga City Attack
carried out by the MNLF-Misuari faction.
Then I will contextualize these three crises using the past
administrations' corresponding records of political crises, mainly
consisting of civilian-military uprisings and coup d' etats.
On August 23, 2010, a retired Manila police officer, Police Chief
Inspector Rolando Mendoza, took hostage a busload of Hongkong
tourists and held them captive for almost half a day in Luneta. The
hostage-taking incident was witnessed by the whole nation and the world
as media descended upon the scene of the incident and broadcast live
feed of the drama all through the day. The hostage-taking ultimately
resulted in the killing of eight hostages and the hostage-taker, and
strained relations with Hongkong.
More than two years later, on February 13, 2013, around 300
armed members of the so-called Royal Sultanate Army of Sulu and North
Borneo landed on Lahad Datu in Sabah, Malaysia to reclaim North
Borneo for the Sultanate of Sulu. While the Malaysian government tried
to negotiate with the invaders by demanding a peaceful surrender, their
self-styled leader, Sultan Jamahlul Kiram, faced the national and world
2
media in his headquarters in Taguig City calling on the Aquino
Government to support the Sultanate's claim over Sabah. The crisis
lasted for a month with the killing and capture of the Sultanate Army by
Malaysian forces and the arrest of around 30 members of said army by
the Philippine Navy off Tawi-tawi.
Only six months later, in August 2013, Nur Misuari declared
Mindanao an independent republic, thereby founding the Mindanao
Independence Movement (MIM). The Mindanao Independence
Movement was to further hold rallies and assemblies in other parts of
Mindanao in order to proclaim Mindanao independence. On September
9, 2013, 500 MNLF fighters who planned to raise the MNLF
independence flag in front of the Zamboanga City Hall held around 200
civilians hostage and engaged government forces in a battle that was to
last for the rest of the month. This resulted in the burning of Zamboanga
City and the death of civilians, soldiers, and most of the insurgents.
These three incidents comprise what I consider to be the three
major political crises that beset the Aquino Administration in the past
four years.
Compared to the rest of the post -EDSA Administrations, these
incidents are nothing as emerging threats to the political stability of the
government. In terms of serious threats to political stability, the PNoy
Administration is more like the Ramos Administration because of the
absence of such threats, when compared to the governments of
Presidents Cory, Estrada, and Arroyo which were regularly assaulted with
civilian and military uprisings. It is only during the Ramos and PNoy
administrations that the Philippine government was not threatened by a
military coup d' etat or a massive mobilization of civilians directly calling
for the ouster of the sitting President or the change of administration.
This is the context of my discussion on the state of political stability
under the PNoy Administration.
From 1986 to 1990, not less than 10 destabilization incidents
beleaguered the Cory government. These included the July 1986 Manila
Hotel Plot, the November 1986 "God Save the Queen" plot, the January
1987 GMA 7 incident, the April 1987 Black Saturday incident, the July
1987 MIA plot, the August 1987 coup attempt which left 53 dead, the
January 1989 Rizal Alih siege in Zamboanga City, the December 1989
coup which almost succeeded, the March 1990 Hotel Delfino coup led by
Cagayan Governor Rodolfo Aguinaldo, and the October 1990 Mindanao
coup attempt led by General Danilo Lim.
3
On the part of the Estrada Administration, we all know that
President Erap did not survive the so-called EDSA 2 uprising in January
2001. Erap was forced to leave Malacafiang after the military led by AFP
Chief of Staff General Angelo Reyes withdrew its support from the
Estrada Administration to back the assumption into office of President
Arroyo.
Political instability during the Arroyo administration immediately
started with the May 1 Riot cum Rebellion, also know as EDSA Tres,
when Erap supporters protested the arrest of Erap with a siege of
Malacafiang on May 1, 2001. This was later followed by the Oakwood
Mutiny in July 2003 when the "Magdalo" rebels led by Navy Lieutenant
Senior Grade Antonio Trillanes occupied the Oakwood apartments in
Ayala Center, Makati.
The next significant threat that faced the Arroyo Administration
took place in the wake of the "Hello Garci" Scandal, when 7 prominent
cabinet members and 3 heads of agencies, dubbed as the Hyatt 10,
resigned their positions in the Arroyo government in July 2005. The
Hyatt 10 were backed by a civilian mobilization at the Makati Central
Business District calling for the military's withdrawal of support from the
Arroyo government. The mobilization ended when President Ramos
threw his support behind Arroyo and the military followed suit.
However, less than a year later, in February 2006, the Arroyo
administration was again under siege by a military-civilian uprising that
ended with the capitulation to the government of the Philippine Marines
Brigade stationed at Fort Bonifacio. Finally, in November 2007, members
of the "Magdalo" group led by Trillanes and General Lim walked-out of
their trial, marched through the streets of Makati, and occupied the
Manila Peninsula Hotel at the Ayala Business District. The mutiny ended
when the military attacked the mutineers and media people camped
inside the hotel and arrested them.
Compared to the political crises that directly threatened the hold on
power of the Cory, Estrada and Arroyo Administrations, the three major
political crises experienced by the Aquino government definitely appear
to be much less in gravity in terms of generating political instability. By
now, the standards of political instability in the Philippines are to be
measured by the number of coups, civilian uprisings, mutinies, and
rebellions that characterized all but two administrations of post- EDSA
Philippines. By these standards, the PNoy government is one of the most
4
politically stable, if not the most politically stable administration,
together with the Ramos Administration. Not a single coup, civilian
uprising, military rebellion or mutiny occurred within the past four years
of the PNoy Administration.
Thus, for all intents and purposes, the qualitative distinction
between the political instability of the past administrations and the
political stability being experienced in the present administration is selfevident.
Whatever military threats were raised in the past or even at
present against the PNoy Administration are at most political nuisances
and publicity stunts. These include the July 2011 broadcast and appeal of
Col. Generoso Mariano for the overthrow of President Aquino as well as
the latest manifesto of former GMA officials and bishops calling for a
regime change.
The only remote threat against the Aquino government that exists
now is the so-called National Transformation Council led by Norberto
Gonzales and other GMA sycophants. However, as it is mostly composed
of GMA lackeys and other politically discredited individuals and groups,
and without any real legitimacy issue to cast upon President Aquino, it is
doubtful that this movement can gather enough support to trigger
dissension within the ranks of the military.
Political stability does not necessarily mean the lack of political
challenges against the government, whether in the form of rallies or mass
demonstrations. This is all part and parcel of a vibrant and functioning
democratic polity where the people directly participate in the debate of
the most urgent issues in Philippine society. This includes the exercise by
the media of their freedom of expression to the fullest extent possible
without any form of restraint from the government. This also includes the
exercise by civil society organizations, people's organizations, political
parties and movements, and non-government organizations of their
rights and freedoms under the Constitution in terms of direct
participation in the formulation of government policies and in political
decision-making.
So when people gather in plazas and freedom parks, or congregate
at Luneta or EDSA, a true democratic and legitimate government will not
see political instability. It will see these acts as evidence of a fully
functioning democratic and stable society where every citizen is
guaranteed his or her right to freely participate in the affairs of the
government in whatever peaceful and legitimate way he may deem to do
so. Political stability includes the fullest exercise of freedom and
5
democracy. Political stability in a democracy does not mean the
imposition of fascist discipline and totalitarian order, as some of us may
glorify with false reminiscences of martial law peace and order.
Remember that martial law only brought the peace of the graveyard, and
order among the tortured, killed, and disappeared.
In this sense, not even the impassioned debate on the passage of
the RH Law in Congress and the subsequent deliberations on its
constitutionality in the Supreme Court succeeded in making a dent on the
country's political stability. For all its apocalyptic warnings, the Catholic
Church failed to drive a wedge between the government and its people on
this issue that was ultimately settled by the Supreme Court through a
class act of political compromise.
Not even the DAP issue which posed a serious challenge to the
administration's fiscal management policies and thrusts spelled a serious
threat to the government, despite concerted media and opposition
hysterics that the DAP funds were pocketed by administration officials
and congressmen.
Not even the million people march against PDAF, eventually
hijacked by the extreme left, the political opposition, and GMA allies
including GMA bishops and priests, threatened political stability because
of the people's faith in the President as their staunchest ally in the
campaign against the misuse of public funds.
Political stability also does not mean the absence of debate and
institutional engagement between the executive, the legislative, and the
judicial branches of government. The normal course of activities in
government demands the exercise of the checks and balance powers of
the three branches on each other. In this sense, political stability in the
Aquino government is self-evident in the vibrant check and balance being
practiced by the three branches of government. So when the judiciary
declares the DAP unconstitutional, and the executive challenges this
decision and moves for its reconsideration, and Congress seeks to
introduce amendatory legislation to cure the unconstitutionality, there is
no political instability, only dynamism in our democracy as exercised by
the three separate branches of our government.
In asking whether the judiciary overreached its power and
authority by declaring the DAP unconstitutional, the President merely
exercised the power of check and balance of the Executive over the
Judiciary. Indeed, it is time to revisit the power of judicial review,
6
especially the expanded power to decide political questions under the
Court's authority to determine grave abuse of discretion on the part of
any official or agency of the government. It must be remembered that this
expanded power is not inherent in the power of judicial review.
Therefore, limiting this power without emasculating the inherent power
of judicial review of the Supreme Court is possible. It will not undermine
the judiciary as an independent branch. Introducing such possibility in
public debate will not create political instability as warned by hysterical
political observers and members of the opposition.
Political stability is not the absence of conflicts, disagreements and
misunderstandings in the course of steering our country towards
progress and development. It is the absence of violence in all these forms
of political contests. This is why we have elections, debates, legal
processes, litigation and court proceedings, and peace negotiations as the
preferred modes of settling conflicts and disputes.
In this respect, the Aquino government has paved the way for
lasting peace and political stability in Mindanao with the signing of the
peace agreement with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and continuous
engagement and consultations with the mainstream of the Moro National
Liberation Front. The passage of the Basic Bangsamoro Law will further
bring the country a step closer to full political stability, especially in
Mindanao. Autonomy and self-determination of the Bangsamoro will
bring the country closer to peace and progress in the South and assure
the Bangsamoro people that their own destiny is intertwined with the rest
of the nation's fate and future. We are a people of many peoples with a
common history of colonialism and struggle for liberation. Herein lies
our strength and dynamism. The sooner we realize this the sooner we can
catch up with our more prosperous neighbors in the Southeast Asian
regIOn.
The Philippines cannot move forward without its Muslim brethren.
Only when we realize that the Bangsamoro struggle is the struggle of all
freedom-loving Filipinos shall we finally come to an understanding of
peace in Mindanao. Together with this peace we shall attain prosperity
through economic self-sufficiency and the equitable distribution of
Mindanao's wealth among all its peoples, Muslims, Christians, and
Lumads. Indeed, the final challenge of political stability to this
Administration is its capability to finally bring peace and economic
development in Mindanao. If it is able to achieve this together with the
MILF and other leaders of Muslim Mindanao, there will be no greater
testament to political stability under the Aquino Administration.
7
Finally, one of the greatest factors of political stability is none other
than the efficient and impartial delivery of justice. The Aquino
Administration was able to weather its own political crises and prevented
these from causing political instability because of its consistent pursuit of
the "Tuwid na Daan" or the Straight Path. The achievements of President
Aquino along this line include the arrest of President Arroyo on various
charges of electoral sabotage, corruption and plunder, the replacement of
the Ombudsman, the impeachment of the Chief Justice, the investigation
and filing of charges against Senators, Congressmen and executive
officials involved in the Napoles PDAF and Malampaya Fund Scam, the
capture of General J ovito Palparan, and the removal from public
positions of executive officials with questionable integrity.
These actions, coupled with the President's own record and
reputation for honesty and integrity, preserved the public's trust in his
administration even four years after his assumption to office. Even when
his trust and approval ratings declined from a high of 70 percent at the
start of his term to the current low of 55 percent four years after, his
current approval and trust ratings are still the highest for any post-EDSA
President past his mid-term. Undoubtedly, the President has maintained
more than a majority of the people's trust and confidence all throughout
his term.
This record is mainly responsible for the political stability enjoyed
by the President and his administration despite the occasional political
crises that come along, including the DAP decision of the Supreme Court.
It is also the reason why groups calling for his ouster, either through
impeachment or outright removal, coming from the extreme left
comprised of the Makabayan bloc in Congress and the extreme right
comprised of GMA allies from the military and the church, have failed to
gain traction in the public pulse.
Aside from these vested interest groups, nobody among the people
seems to be eager to replace a clean, honest and corruption-free
President with a successor who is currently hard-pressed defending
himself and his family from persistent allegations of systemic corruption
as mayors of the country's richest city. Insofar as the people are
concerned, there is no question that this administration is far better than
its predecessors, and definitely more preferable than what awaits down
the line of succession. The people simply find no real alternative to this
administration or a cause for regime change, not only because the
alternatives are far worse, but because the Aquino Administration still
8
represents the best chance for achieving political, economic and social
reforms during this transition towards the era of Philippine
modernization.
These, therefore, are the foundations of the resilient political
stability the country is experiencing under the Aquino Administration:
the President's unquestioned legitimacy as the most popularly elected
President in post-EDSA history, the people's continuing trust and
confidence in his mandate and integrity, and the lack of credibility and
the questionable motives of the political groups that continue to
undermine him without any success.
As a result, the Philippine State has never been more politically
stable than it is at present. Government is intact. People's confidence in
the President is still the highest among past Presidents despite the recent
post mid-term decline. Public trust in the President's anti-corruption
drive is still sustained despite some minor setbacks. And economic
indicators consistently project recovery and international confidence on
sound financial and fiscal management policies that spurred record GDP
growth in the past four years.
So what is the message that can be culled from all these lessons on
how this government has achieved political stability in the past four
years?
For the second time in our post-EDSA history, the people are again
talking about continuity: continuity in clean and honest governance and
the fight against corruption, continuity in a leadership with unquestioned
moral integrity, continuity in policies that prioritize the poor and
marginalized, and continuity in the principles of democracy and
modernization. In 1992, the people hoped for continuity in a leadership
that would follow through with the country's transition back to a
democratic and open society. The same call for continuity in leadership
was not felt in the 1998 and, especially, in the 2010 elections. That is,
until now.
The message of continuity in our country's march towards
modernization has never been more urgent than it is now as we approach
the 2016 Presidential Elections. This message of continuity is the clearest
testament to our present political stability and advancement from a
Banana Republic to a strong State. The people are concerned about not
wasting the many advances in political reforms and economic growth
that were achieved in the past four years. The people want more of the
9
good thing. They are very much wary of going back to the old ways of
corruption, patronage, and weak State mechanisms that undermine
political stability and the people's trust in their government.
Our generation must be reminded of the wasted opportunity that
was the last 10 years of the Arroyo Administration. For most of us, the
decade of 2000-2010 should have been the most productive years of our
short lives in this world. What we lost in those ten years we have tried to
regain and rebuild in the past four years. We cannot afford to lose
another ten, or even just six years, to another corrupt and mismanaged
administration. We must continue the legacy of honesty and integrity
that this President and this administration have fought so hard to
institutionalize.
Let me close by saying that, despite all that has been said so far, it
doesn't mean that the Aquino Administration is left with nothing more to
do or strive for.
Lest I leave you with the impression that I am of the belief that we
have reached the zenith of political and democratic stability, or that the
level of stability we have achieved thus far was so easily gained and will
so easily be sustained and further intensified, I will candidly be the first
to admit that the last four years haven't been perfect.
I am not, by any means, suggesting that this Administration can
now rest on its laurels.
All that has been done can be undone, and the strong and resilient
political fabric it has woven can be unraveled, if it does not prove that it
can continue to proceed down this straight and narrow path, regardless
of who might find themselves in the crosshairs of the Law.
It is no secret that the Administration has, at times, been
beleaguered by issues that raise serious questions about the integrity, not
of the President himself, but those who are supposed to be his allies in
espousing the tenets of good governance, in the fight against corruption,
and in upholding the Rule of Law.
These issues, by themselves, will not bring this Administration
down. Trust me, when our ongoing investigation into the PDAF and
Malampaya Fund Scams first emerged in the media, there were those
who warned that we, in the Department of Justice, are treading
dangerous ground that would bring the government down because of the
10
stature of those alleged to be involved. But, even then, I had better faith
in the Filipino people and the Philippine government than that. I
believed that the Truth should come out and, once it does, it will
empower the nation, rather than destroy it.
More than a year hence, our government is still going strong and,
though the going might be rough for some, ultimately, all that has
happened has breathed new life into people's hope for a better future.
That, to me, is enough to prove those doomsayers wrong because. After
all, it is the people's interests that matter, not the interests of those who
had plundered the public coffers for too long while plaYing us for fools.
So, no, issues of integrity involving members of this Administration
will not bring it down.
However, they provide a challenge and a test for this
Administration. It is how we proceed from these allegations and issues
that will ultimately decide whether this Administration can keep the trust
and confidence of the Filipino people. He has weathered a lot, and has
come out on top because people still truly believe that his integrity is
beyond question and he has the best of intentions. But earning and
maintaining the people's trust and confidence is not a victory that is
easily achieved. It can, even now, be lost if the people aren't convinced
that Justice will be delivered withoutfear orfavor.
The Administration may have won several skirmishes in the past
four years, but the struggle is never really finished. The fight for political
stability is never-ending, and the PNoy Administration must prove equal
to the challenge until the very end of its term. It must prove its
commitment to the Tuwid na Daan, not once, twice, or even a hundred
times, but each and every, single time.
There could and should be no exceptions.
After all, there is really no alternative to the Straight Path. Our
children deserve no less. In its old and fading years, our own generation
deserves no less.
Maraming salamat po.
11
No comments:
Post a Comment