By Perfecto R. Yasay Jr.

In the bedroom of my apartment in Honolulu, I watched the Filipino Channel news coverage of the reported walkout of Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV and Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim from the court hearing in Makati. They marched to the Manila Peninsula Hotel where they holed themselves in, together with other civilian supporters that included former Vice President Teofisto Guingona and Bishop Emeritus Julio Labayen, demanding the ouster of President Arroyo.   

On live television, millions saw Senator Trillanes claim that his actions were motivated by his constitutional duty as a military officer to protect the people from the abuses and corruption of the Arroyo government. He added that having been duly elected as a senator of the Republic by an overwhelming mandate, it was an abuse on the part of President Arroyo to prevent him from performing his responsibilities because it deprived more than 11 million Filipinos their representative in the Senate.

I also heard Bishop Labayen emphatically exclaim, in justifying his involvement, that “where there is no justice, there can be no peace.” I understood this statement to mean that as an official of the Church, he was carrying out his prophetic responsibilities in fighting and exposing injustice wherever it shows its ugly head.

Whether or not Senator Trillanes and General Lim did the right thing is not for us to judge today, even if they are solely responsible for the consequences of their deeds. Until their battle is over, which they have not given up, there is no way of telling if they are patriots or criminals. I recall what my professor in political science taught me in college: that a revolution is a successful rebellion, while a rebellion is a failed revolution.

But the defining moment of Senator Trillanes and General Lim, together with their small band of supporters at the hotel, was not their readiness to die for the sake of country and people, but their gallantry in facing the indignities of surrender in order to save innocent civilian lives. While their intention was to resist and defy President Arroyo by urging her overthrow through People Power, by all indications, they had no plans to engage the police and military authorities in a violent and bloody confrontation at a public place packed with foreign guests, local patrons, service employees and media correspondents.

On the contrary, it was revolting to witness hundreds of police and battle-hardened soldiers mount their assault with tanks and armored personnel carriers, high-powered ammunition and tear gases to carry out the order of the President as Commander-in-Chief to immediately quell the rebellion, in apparent disregard for the safety of human lives or the needless destruction of property.

But far more revolting is the suggestion of Rep. Ignacio Arroyo, as reported by the press, that Trillanes should be called a terrorist and not a senator for staging his defiance against the President at the Manila Peninsula.

If the good congressman has the gall to make such reference about Senator Trillanes who refused to sacrifice human life, albeit to achieve his political objective of removing the President, how would he suggest calling his sister-in-law who, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, should be held responsible for giving the assault order that endangered the lives of helpless people for the sake of her political survival? Is not terrorism essentially the pursuit of political goals through violence, coercion or intimidation without regard for the value of human lives?

The day after the siege of the hotel my law students at the University of Hawaii, following up on my earlier lecture on constitutional law, asked me if there were any jurisprudence on the principle spelled out in the Philippine Constitution that the Armed Forces is the protector of the people and the State. There is none to my knowledge. But I pointed out to them the view of Father Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., read especially in the light of the successful civilian-approved coup of February 1986, that one cannot escape the conclusion that, under the Constitution, the Armed Forces can be a legitimate instrument for the overthrow of a civilian government that has ceased to be a servant of the people.

Given such premise, Senator Trillanes and General Lim, together with the other military officers now in custody and charged for acts of disloyalty against the President and Commander-in-Chief, like Gen. Renato Miranda and Col. Ariel Querubin, can arguably raise a valid point to their defense. That their actions were motivated to faithfully carry out their constitutional duty as protector of the people is not disputed, although Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago incorrectly asserts that this duty applies only in the event of a foreign invasion.

However, since statutes and the Articles of War defining such conduct as punishable offenses cannot contradict the express declaration of a principle under the Constitution, the fundamental law must govern.

Considering that we are uniquely a nation whose Constitution vest upon the Armed Forces the duty to protect the people and the State from the abuses of civilian authority, there is an urgent need for the Judiciary to finally resolve this issue, perhaps in the pending petition(s) filed by Colonel Querubin and others now pending with the Supreme Court.

Mrs. Arroyo ascended to the highest office because of those who bravely risked their lives against corruption and abuse of power, many of whom she now dismisses as destabilizers. She should not forget that, regardless of how the Supreme Court validated her succession, the fact remains that Filipino power also catapulted her to the position of President after the elements of the Armed Forces, responding to their constitutional duty of protecting the people, forced the resignation of her immediate predecessor. 

Indeed, as succinctly expressed by Father Bernas, “Civilian supremacy is not guaranteed supremacy of civilian officers who are in power but of supremacy of the sovereign people. The Armed Forces, in this sense, is the protector of the people and the State”

Whether Senator Trillanes and General Lim will be patriots or criminals is for history to judge. But many will remember the November 29, 2007, siege of the Manila Peninsula as no more than an arrogant and excessive display of brute force aimed at intimidating legitimate opposition to President Arroyo.

Why do we have this nagging feeling that the short-lived rebellion by Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV and Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim at the Peninsula Hotel in Makati on Thursday would certainly not be the last?

I spoke too soon.  I mean, I wrote too soon. Less than a month ago, the Congressional Committee on Justice slammed the door on the Tamano supplement to the original Pulido impeachment complaint.

It is difficult to escape clichés—at work, at home. In almost every aspect of your life, you will hear them, even use them.

The Entrepreneur: 7% GDP growth in 2007: Can we do it again?

The Senate should be able to finish its work on the proposed budget for 2008 before the end of the year, so that we can start the New Year with a timely spending package. The Senate has temporarily suspended legislative inquiries so it can concentrate on deliberating on the proposed budget.

It is well that Congress and the newly established Procurement Board have decided to look deeper into the whys and wherefores of that World Bank board decision deferring consideration of the second tranche amounting to $232 million of the bank-funded National Road Improvement Program (NRIP).

People speak of the growing problem in hushed tones, respectful of cultural diversity. For some, the encounters are limited to the supermarket line where some South Koreans brusquely cut in as they do at the airport where police shrug in subservient deference.

In the bedroom of my apartment in Honolulu, I watched the Filipino Channel news coverage of the reported walkout of Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV and Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim from the court hearing in Makati.