Speech
of
His Excellency Benigno S. Aquino III
President of the Philippines
At the 30th anniversary dinner of the Makati Business Club
[Delivered at the Peninsula Manila, Makati City, on December 1, 2011]
Allow me first to congratulate the Makati Business Club on your 30th anniversary. For so long, you have been a true partner in promoting the role of the business sector in the development of the Philippines, not in the least through your advocacies and corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs, including the CongressWatch and your participation in the Coalition against Corruption. It is always good to know that, as we try to work for the Filipino people, the Makati Business Club is making the extra effort to contribute positively to public interest.
This has always been a venue for all aspects of policy, and not just talk about the economy. After all, no sector operates in a vacuum: not you, not me, and obviously not the Supreme Court.
My task as Chief Executive is clearly spelled out: to uphold and defend the constitution; implement its laws; do justice to every man; and consecrate myself to the service of the people. You know that even before I was president, I was puzzled, even alarmed, by the behavior of the Supreme Court. Our people established our government to uphold the public good; and we in the executive need what every executive needs: clarity in the rules, consistency in its interpretations, and a modicum of respect so that we can implement our plans.Therefore, what confronts me now is a central question: Can the executive fulfill its mandate given the current air of judicial uncertainty?
Let me cite for you an example. The Supreme Court upheld that Dinagat was a province. They went on to establish the provincial government, from the hiring of provincial staff for the new capitol, and budgets for hospitals. Then the Supreme Court reversed itself, and decided it should remain only a constituent part of Surigao del Norte. So everything stopped. Then the Supreme Court reversed itself again, leaving everyone in limbo: Surigao del Norte is unsure if it reassumes budgetary responsibility, or whether the new provincial government has authority, resulting in funds remaining untapped, and doctors left unpaid: a paralysis of basic functions due to blurred accountabilities.
As fellow executives, you can fully appreciate how untenable this situation is, when my job is to deliver services to a public for whom merely pointing the finger at a confused—and confusing—Supreme Court won’t do. These are not abstract rules or theories: the lives and well-being of our fellow citizens are at stake. When the status is in limbo, how do we respond to the people of Dinagat as they clamor for the continued existence of their hospitals, their doctors, and their medicines?
Mindful as we are of our roles in society, so too are we aware that the success of the system is dependent not on one man, or one institution, but on the interplay between all sectors and institutions. A weak and corrupt government affects the state of the economy. We have seen so often in different countries all over the world how political instability has done nothing but harm business operations, and ultimately, economic stability. And, worst of all, these redound directly to the lives of our countrymen: in government programs and initiatives that do not, or cannot truly help the people because of a corrupt leadership; in a lack of jobs and opportunities to take stock of their lives; and ultimately, in a poor and vulnerable Philippines.
Because of the system of checks and balances, there is inevitably an interplay between the branches of government. There is a built-in safeguard, a designated arbiter, when disagreements or questions arise. This arbiter, as everyone would agree, is supposed to be the Supreme Court. But this is premised on a fundamental assumption: that it will be objective and nonpartisan.
When our lawyers all know, that it takes the Supreme Court ten days, normally, to attend to motions, and it decides to issue a TRO for Mrs. Arroyo in three, who can avoid wondering what she did, to merit such speedy relief?
When, furthermore, in deliberating on the TRO asked for by Mrs. Arroyo, the majority relied solely on the say-so of Mrs. Arroyo’s lawyers, when any review of the documents submitted to the court showed that she herself couldn’t make up her mind which cities she wanted to go to, how many people she wanted to bring, or what she wanted to do—see doctors or attend forums—who can avoid wondering if her main priority was to escape the arm of the law?
Or, let me quote Justice Sereno: ” why is the majority not even willing to hear the government before issuing the TRO, when, in the supervision of judiciary employees, a mere administrative officer of the Supreme Court, and not a judicial officer, may deny the right to travel?”
When the court itself, in granting exceptionally speedy relief to Mrs. Arroyo, set conditions for her to be able to leave—only to say, afterwards, those conditions didn’t have to be met before Mrs. Arroyo left—who can avoid asking why then, did the court impose conditions it had no intention of seeing fulfilled?
In these cases, did the Supreme Court follow its own precedents and rules? Is it then not fair of us to wonder whether objectivity has given way to partisanship? Is it then not fair of us to express concern at the direction the Supreme Court has taken?
Let me be clear: we are not out to dictate upon the court, much less spark a constitutional crisis. No one should fear a healthy balance where all sides are heard, and empowered to assert not only their constitutional rights, but fulfill their constitutional obligations. We ask these questions, not out of a desire to undermine their positions, not out of disrespect and malice, but to fulfill our mandate and to our bosses, the Filipino people—you included. Consider the alternatives. Had the Court taken pains to hear both sides; if it deliberated, not with surprising haste, but with thoroughness; and then, having objectively made up its mind, stuck to its interpretations: then we would have what we all desire. Stability, predictability, and the authentic rule of law.
And we could all do our jobs. Despite this air of uncertainty let me be categorical. I intend to do mine.
The issue of electoral fraud has been in the national conscousness since the Hello Garci controversy. We now have a singular opportunity to put closure to an issue which, the previous administration was unwilling to address. This is what brought us to this point in the first place. This time, closure can be achieved by submitting Mrs. Arroyo to the process of investigation and a fair hearing.
Just recently the President of South Korea paid a state visit to our country, and in my toast at our dinner, I said that the Republic of Korea represents some of my most cherished hopes for our own country. The institutions and body politic of South Korea grew stronger from holding its leaders to account. Chun doo-hwan and Roh tae-woo were convicted of crimes only they, as former presidents, could have committed. It was not seen as a vendetta, but rather, as what it was: justice. The strengthening of a system of laws, and not men. Closure to a painful and harrowing past characterized by impunity in official circles.
The question of holding public officials accountable to their actions is not one that we reserve for the presidency alone; rather, it is one that applies to all government officials, from the policemen and traffic enforcers who engage in “kotong,” or extortion, to the highest officials in our executive, legislative and judiciary branches. Just as some presidents have subverted their offices for their selfish wants, so too have some officials in other branches exhibited this kind of behavior. We saw how this worked in the example of former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, who resigned in the face of charges that she had betrayed the public trust; and we must continue asking questions and remain aware of the actions and motivations of our public servants, in any branch of government.
At the bottom line is the firm belief that justice is the bedrock of progress. Justice, in essence, means that the actions of any man or woman will hold the same consequences for another; that a street sweeper or a baker’s apprentice will undergo the same processes as, perhaps, a member of the Makati Business Club—hopefully not—or a former President of our Republic. The predictability of outcomes breeds stability, and shows that our institutions are not slaves to political expedience, to money or connections, or to status.
Just the other day, Secretary Baldoz pointed out to me that over a quarter of our workforce is abroad. As we build economic foundations to allow more of our productive citizens either to come home or stay home, it is incumbent upon us to build a system of merit, where everyone knows the rules are fair and consistent; and where there are no exceptions– even for an ex-President. I say this knowing full well that I too, shall be an ex-President in four years and a six months. But this is the point: your guarantee of good behavior is the certainty of accountability.
As I have repeatedly said, my actions are guided by a very tangible bottom line: a Filipino family not having enough on their dinner table; a Filipino child not having the opportunity to advance in society; a Filipino citizen not being able to take pride in his nation. As President, every day I face a crossroads; I know full well the gravity of every decision I make—and its consequences, and I hold myself accountable.
Thank you for listening.
x x x."
