Check and Balance

Published in Cebu Gold Star Daily


A recent Pulse Asia survey regarding the Filipino opinion about charter change shows that about 42% reject it. But the more alarming finding is that 57% of Filipinos know little to nothing about the Constitution. Although I have this inherent distrust for survey results, experientially, this figure seems to be true. Even I knew very little about our most basic law before entering law school. I just never bothered to learn it back then. And like so many of our Filipino youth, I just didn’t care.


Now that I work for the Filipino people, I have no choice but to do care. So allow me to explain our system of government and how it is supposed to work. 


Our government is composed of three parts or branches. 


We have the Legislative Branch or the people who make the laws. These are the House of Representatives and the Senate. Legislative Power is otherwise known as the Power of the Purse because it is the lawmakers who design the national budget.


We have the Executive Branch or the people who implement the law. These are the President, the Cabinet members and everyone else working under the different departments. Executive Power is also called the Power of the Sword because it is the Executive that imposes the law and controls the police and the military.


Finally, we have the Judicial Branch or the people who interpret the law in actual cases. These are the Supreme Court justices and the justices and judges of the lower courts. Judicial Power is sometimes referred to as the Power of the Scales because it is the courts that have the final word on actual cases or controversies. 


Power is spread out among these three branches because of a long history of world experience that if power belonged only to one person or to a single family, there will be tyranny. By giving specific groups specific powers and duties, they are able to check and balance each other’s actions so that minimal damage will arise out of any fault or error by any individual person in government. In other words, our system essentially is a result of a well-placed mistrust in human nature. This is called the Separation of Powers.


How do these checks and balances work? In several ways:

1. If Legislature approves a bad law, the Executive can veto it. If the Executive abuses his veto, the Legislature can, in turn, override it by getting a higher vote.
2. If the Judiciary makes a bad decision in a criminal case, the Executive can pardon the convicted person and set him free.
3. If the Executive assigns unworthy or questionable persons to the Cabinet or to certain key government positions, this decision can be rejected by the Commission on Appointments under the Legislative Branch of government.
4. If certain government officials, namely the President, the Vice-President, the Supreme Court Justices, the Commissioners of the Commission on Elections, Audit and Civil Service, and the Ombudsman prove to be unworthy of their positions, they can be impeached with the initiative of the Legislative Branch.
5. Finally, if any person in government exercises his or her power with grave abuse of discretion, the Judiciary can reverse, modify or set aside that abusive exercise of power and order that person to behave properly.

All these are designed to keep power in its proper place.


Sadly, these checks and balances have mostly been illusory in recent years. The Supreme Court Justices, Members of Congress and even the Ombudsman are either friends or family of the President. There exists a personal touch that contorts the entire system into something no longer recognizable as a democracy. The Philippines has been disfigured under the rule of pakikisama. What we used to consider as a value is now proving to be a serious liability and a blockade against national unity and freedom. 


After all is said and done, the ultimate check and balance comes from us – the common people. We vote for our leaders, their policies, attitudes, experience, education, faith, prejudices, mistakes, triumphs and yes… their families. Our collective decision will form our collective destiny. 


I hope we can all remember this next year.


Register. Vote. And use nothing less than your very best judgment.

What's Your Reply?

To be published in Cebu Gold Star Daily

No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of the press.

- THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

The Philippine Senate is in the process of reducing our rights as members of the press. It recently approved Senate Bill No. 2150, which gives any person the so-called ‘Right of Reply’. The proposed law criminalizes media practitioners and shuts down their operations if they fail to publish the reply of their subjects. It commands that the reply should have the same space, time and prominence as the original article or news segment. The reply must also be published within a number of days after the original article is published. All this must be made free of charge.


This law is so wrong on several levels. 


First, it reduces the freedom of the press to navigate through the truths they wish to expose to the public. The obligations imposed by this bill are an artificial deterrent against truth-telling. It sends a message to media that revealing bad news about a person or group of persons will probably cost them double compared to talking about other mundane things. 


Second, it corrupts the judgment of media by forcing them to base their actions on avoidance rather than fearless pursuit. It is the worst form of censorship pretending to be some form of reputation protection mechanism. 


Third, it is just bad for business. Imagine if this law were put into action. Our front pages and new clips will contain one reply after another. Our newspapers will become public forums, setting aside today’s most important items for a person’s reply to yesterday’s news. This form of compulsion will degrade the news into a mere chatroom of endless debates. What publisher in his right mind would want to do business under these conditions?


Fourth, it ignores the ideal that the press must be the ultimate check and balance over government and other powerful persons. It is the mechanism that is capable of keeping people in line by scrutinizing their words and actions. Such an institution is the people’s best defense and weapon against corrupt practices. Such an institution provides the transparency that the rich and the powerful are unwilling to supply freely. 


Both the Supreme Courts of the United States and the Philippines have long been clear that any law, which seeks to limit civil liberties has to pass a three-point test of strict scrutiny to be valid: 

1. It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. 
2. It must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. 
3. It must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. 

On its face, the proposed Right of Reply Bill does not present any compelling government interest but only protects the reputation of individual public figures -- people whose words and actions should be open to full public scrutiny in the first place. 

It is not narrowly tailored because it does more harm than good. It attempts to protect a single person’s reputation while depriving the rest of the people of a free, independent and fearless provider of information.


Finally, it is not the least restrictive means available because it commands media to provide free reply space and time with very specific parameters, thereby compelling them to forego more important matters. It is confiscatory and oppressive at the mere whim of any person who gets too sensitive about his or her feelings. Such conditions are too unreasonable and burdensome for media to function in a normal manner.


Our laws against libel and slander already hold media responsible for any lies or malicious information that it might spread to the public. The Right of Reply Bill is an unnecessary chokehold on the free press and must be rejected if the truth is to continue flowing through our papers, our airwaves and in the minds of our people.