It’s Democratic, Stupid!
By definition, what we have is a democratic court.
I’m totally outraged not merely because the Supreme Court in its recent contentious decision allowed the outgoing President to
violate the fundamental law of the land- the 1987 Constitution, but also because most people when they scream this should not be the case as we are a “democracy” simply missed the point. By definition and in reality, what we have is a democratic court.
Nine out of 15 high court justices voted in favor of Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s midnight appointment of the next Supreme Court Justice. The ponencia penned by Justice Lucas Bersamin states that Mrs. Arroyo is justified to appoint the successor of Chief Justice Renato Puno who will retire on May 17 because “the lack of any appointed occupant of the office of Chief Justice harms the independence of the Judiciary.” This despite the fact that the constitutional provision is clear and unambiguous- the President cannot make midnight appointments “two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end” of the President’s term.
Section 15 Article VII of the 1987 Constitution states:
“Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.”
Not only did the high court of the land give President Arroyo and her successors the authority to violate the Constitution, it also allowed the executive branch to fill all vacancies in the judiciary during the ban period.
Now there’s a mounting public protest in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s so-called self-serving decision. Members of the bar, professionals, militants and politicians criticized the controversial ruling that exempted the high court from a constitutional ban against midnight appointments by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, while they praised the lone justice- Conchita Carpio-Morales- who wrote the dissenting opinion.
Justice Carpio-Morales lambasted Justice Bersamin’s ponencia that chiefly relies “on the trivialities of draftsmanship style in arriving at a constitutional construction.” She argued that the President has the unequivocal power to make judicial appointments, but such power is counterbalanced “by the election ban due to the need to insulate the judiciary from the political climate of presidential elections.” “To abandon this interplay of checks and balances on the mere inference that the establishment of the JBC could de-politicize the process of judicial appointments lacks constitutional mooring,” Carpio’s dissenting opinion read.
The protesters, which include Economics Professor and Inquirer columnist Solita Monsod, said they are outraged with the high court’s highly contentious verdict.
“I’m totally outraged. The Supreme Court is the bulwark of democracy,” an Inquirer report quoted Monsod as saying. The protesters were anxious that the decision endangered the country’s democracy.
Lawyer Arlene Bag-ao was also quoted as saying that democracy is jeopardized when the principle of checks and balances are disregarded and an individual is permitted to “to abrogate unto himself the powers of government.”
But that’s exactly the point! The Supreme Court allowed the President to desecrate the charter because we are a democracy, which simply means “mob rule!” Perhaps it is safer to think that the 9 justices were simply acting within the constitutional ambit since the charter itself establishes a “republican and democratic” state. We should be a Republican state NOT a democracy.
The word democracy is dangerous because it has no exact meaning. I have clearly stated my opposition to the political system of democracy because it is simply a form of collectivism. Democracy is a benevolent form of socialism wherein political power is defined by the majority or whoever rules a given territory.
In this blog I stated the following:
We have been taught by our teachers and professors, as well us our absurd intellectuals, that the Philippines is a “democratic country.” We face constitutional perils and destructions of our rights because of the notion that democracy is a noble idea. Democracy is nothing but an EVIL idea! But it seems that nobody in this country recognizes the fact that democracy is a mythical idea that must be rejected. Yes, the Constitution states, under Section 1, Article II that “The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignity resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them” (emphasis added). Democracy simply means “mob rule” or “rule of the majority.” This means that the majority can vote and abrogate our rights like what is happening today. Democracy is an evil idea conceived in ancient Greece. History tells us that the first victim of “democracy” was Socrates who was condemned by the people to death because of his influence on the youth. This country must be and ought to be a Republican state, period!
In this blog I also stated the following:
The words “republican” and “democratic” are two distinct terms, bearing different meanings and denotations. This is one example of Philippine departure from the American constitution. Federalist papers show that the framers of the American Constitution refused to use the word democratic to describe the political system of the United States not merely because it is vague, but also because it was not their intention to establish a democratic state. According to James Madison, his idea of a republican state does not mean popular democracy in which power is left in the hands of the people (Box 76). In a true republican state, political power is delegated through popular elections to elected officials, thereby providing a shielding barrier from reckless or injudicious mob governance.
The problem with most people is that they don’t clearly understand the real concept of democracy- that it is simply a term that is full of contradictions. It is not surprising that even a highly educated person like Monsod firmly believes in the ideal of democracy which has no specific, objective meaning at all. This is the reason why I stated the following:
No, we don’t need a political system based on an evil lie— that is, democracy—in this country. Democracy is simply a myth and an evil idea, which has no objective, clear, specific meaning. It simply means unlimited majority rule. History tells us that the first victim of “democracy” as a social system was Socrates who was condemned to death by the people in Greece because of his “dangerous” influence on the youth. What we need is a social system based on the nature of man and his rights.
Yes, I am not comfortable with most of the provisions of the Constitution which is the source of all contradictions, populist policies, economic troubles, controls and regulations that we experience today.