That is not how the government acted in seeking to put Mrs Gloria Arroyo behind bars. Rather than keep the former president guessing as to the date when formal charges against her would be laid, President Aquino announced back in September what the timetable for it would be. Here is how he phrased it,
We will start filing the cases before the end of this year and with a little cooperation from the judiciary, maybe we can put some of these people in jail next year.
This signalled to Mrs Arroyo that she had to make travel plans as soon as possible, which then forced Justice Secretary Leila De Lima to take it upon herself to place the congresswoman under a departure watch list to keep her in the country even before preliminary investigations were concluded. This according to one justice meant that De Lima was now “more powerful than the court“ which can only do the same “after the filing of the information and the issuance of an arrest warrant“.
“With a little cooperation from the judiciary”: those words of P-Noy now seem ominously prescient of events as they unfolded because straight after thwarting an attempt by the former president to leave by disregarding an injunction from the high court on the watch list order, the government then turned to a joint panel between the Comelec and the DOJ set up to look into electoral fraud to file a case before a regional trial court against Mrs Arroyo. This timeline shows that within the space of a few hours upon receiving their case files which numbered several thick ring binders, a judge issued an arrest warrant.
Had this judge not been so “cooperative”, Mrs Arroyo might have successfully fled the scene since the Supreme Court had by then thrown out the government’s appeal to have its injunction on their watch list order lifted. And so despite the fact that it had foolishly forewarned the former president of its intended moves, the government somehow managed to keep her in the country long enough for an arrest warrant to be served.
In the process of doing so, however, the government may have committed a few grave mistakes. These might come back to haunt its case. Certainly if it is found that it acted inappropriately, the president needs to own up to it because it was he who set the wheels in motion that eventually landed the government in a whole heap of trouble. Particularly with respect to his campaign promise to uphold the rule of law, P-Noy will be ultimately responsible if it is determined that his government usurped judicial powers or acted in contempt of court.
At the moment, the president is assailing the Supreme Court for the speed in which it issued its injunction on the government’s watch list order as he spoke before his “home court” the Makati Business Club, saying
(O)ur lawyers all know that it takes the Supreme Court 10 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?
And yet the president doesn’t see the irony of his position because the government was quite happy to get a lower court judge to issue an arrest warrant on his adversary in a matter of hours, which was a far more difficult decision to make. Certainly, when it comes to fostering the rule of law, what this government has in mind is something quite different from the standard.
Like a thief in the night–that is how the Hacienda Luisita decision was handed down by the high court in the midst of all this. Oral arguments had been heard and the judgement of the court had been pending. No one knew the day or time when it would materialize. Suddenly either by coincidence or by design the justices rendered a unanimous vote in favour of the farm worker beneficiaries to have the Aquino-Cojuangco estate title transferred directly to them.
Having justified its bold and decisive actions against the court’s injunctions because of the ensuing confusion surrounding it, the government through its spokesman immediately informed the public that it would respect this particular decision as public support had been mounting in favour of it. The only caveat was for the determination of ‘just compensation’ for the president’s relatives and other issues that the court still has to settle.
The initial action by the Arroyo government to revoke the stock distribution option taken by the Cojuangcos in complying with the agrarian reform law was suspect according to US officials based on confidential diplomatic cables as a form of retaliation by Mrs Arroyo on the matriarch of the Cojuangco clan for supporting calls for her ouster back in 2005. What the Supreme Court ruling now does is open up the possibility for a counter-retaliatory move on the part of Mr Aquino against the Macapagal-Arroyo clans who also own sugar plantations.
This tantalizing opportunity could reverse the destructive pattern of competition by ruling elite factions to accumulate wealth through landholdings using the weak system of property rights in the country in order to consolidate power. Now in a bid to weaken each other, these same ruling elites might now work to dismantle each other’s landholdings. Given that one faction controls the executive and another holds the sympathies of the judiciary, this feud might actually produce something positive for the country.
Like a thief in the night—that is not how events overtook this government on the economic front. For one, the debt crisis in Europe was unravelling like a train wreck in slow motion for several years now. The seeds of this crisis were actually sown during the last one when governments pumped liquidity into their banking systems and engaged in stimulatory fiscal spending. It was only a matter of time before bond holders began to raise the cost of public debt.
The government had ample time to prepare the nation for this crisis, to bullet proof it by sustaining demand through public construction and investment. The early warning signs that its fiscal consolidation was going too far and actually dampening growth in demand were quite evident during the end of last year. The government had ample opportunity to correct its course and make the necessary adjustments. It may turn out in the end that a transition to a new government may have caused unnecessary disruptions to patron-client networks in the bureaucracy. Reconfiguring these networks took too much time.
Finance officials might have taken this as a welcome blessing as the slow spend rate allowed them to limit the fiscal deficit while sticking to the president’s no new taxes pledge. Meanwhile,with the fiscal space it had from fiscal consolidation, it cut tariffs on certain industries. It balanced this decision by removing power subsidies to exporters in special economic zones. These could threaten the growth of some industries and lead to the closure of others at a time when global demand for our exports is already weakening or restructuring as some economists have noted.
The biblical phrase “like a thief in the night” comes from the parable of the ten virgins found in the canonical gospels of the New Testament. It is also known as the parable of the wise and the foolish virgins. The five virgins who were prepared for the bride-groom came to his wedding feast, while the other five who weren’t were excluded. It has an eschatological message: to be prepared for the day of judgement. The final reckoning.
With the second coming of the Aquino dynasty, will the country be prepared to pass the test? Or will it simply slip into oblivion? The day of judgement is nearly at hand!