President Rod Duterte and the Rule of Law

Pre and post-election fever might be over for most of the Filipinos. I avoided much discussion (to prevent stress and wrinkles, the secret of my youth at 43) about the event and personalities whom I would vote and not and my reasons or motivation or bases of my decision. When Incoming-President Rod Duterte was reluctant in running for Presidency, I commented that he must. I believed in him (in fact, I applied in his office in Davao to be his Economic “adviser” in 2003. I don’t apply if I don’t believe someone to be my boss). When he ran, he was one of my shortlisted choices along with Hon Senator Grace Poe. When Senator Poe allied with LAKAS NUCD General Fidel Ramos (a neoliberal and architect of war economy in Philippines for profiteering of his war & defense manufacturing and supplies U.S. company), my list was left with one choice--- who was Rod Duterte. May 08, 2016, last day or vispera of the 2016, “papatayin ko kayong lahat!” (I will kill you all), still flashes and subtitledin TV news domestic channels warning the druglords. I was impressed by gallant President Duterte for his bravery and firm decision. Another good character of him which made me fall “in love” with him at first was his unshakeable position no matter how good or bad for the people’s perspective despite of criticism of different sectors and media. He can’t be swayed or influence by anyone nor group. A character of a king. I was thinking that his character and belief of delivering justice to the victims should go beyond imprisonment. Death for the offenders can sometimes satisfy justice requirements. This is the will of God. (Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to the king as the supreme authority, or to governors as those sent by Him to punish evildoers and praise (reward) well doers. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorance of foolish men. Live in freedom, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. (1 Peter 2:13-16)) However, the local peace and order and security situation is manageable like in Davao City. He can personally meet and witness or experience the facts and further establish the truths. He can kill. National situation, however is different from local. Mayor is different from President. I was expecting that he would modify his statements without changing his ideology about “justice.” He can put his ideology to legal perspective of bringing back the Death Penalty in Revised Penal Code of the Philippines instead of continuing his cinematic role of “Dark Justice.” I left my Ballot for President blank in May 9, 2016. Leaving it blank does not mean I don’t like him. It means my reservations about and I see spaces in his mind which are not cleared yet. Human Rights can be an issue. I believe in the due process of law and the rule of law and not the rule of man (submit yourselves to every human institution (in other translation it is the authority and or ordinance or law, 1 Peter 2:13). Kings and governors (presidents, PM,etc.) are likewise be feared and respected for they are the executives of the law. How can President Duterte qualify to be my personal president or angel of God if he can’t obey his own laws? To make the discussion exciting and appreciatiable, let us review some theories about the law. Natural lawyers argued that “what the law must be determined, in some sense, is by what the law ought to be,” while positivists lawyers contend that “what is law is determined only by the institutional facts internal to a legal system, facts that may or may not meet moral standards.” Positivists like Thomas Hobbes and John Austin,argued that even the legitimacy of law did not depend on moral criteria; law must be obeyed, however much it falls short of moral ideals. “What is the law for?” is the simple rephrased meaning of law according to Naturalists. Apostle Paul, the last messenger of God in these last days, mentioned in his letter to Timothy that “Now we know that the Law is good, if one uses it legitimately. We realize that law is not enacted for the righteous, but for the lawless and rebellious (to God), for the ungodly and sinful (good or not sinful atheists are not included), for the unholy and profane, for killers of father or mother, for murderers for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave traders and liars and perjurers, and for anyone else who is averse to sound teaching…” (1 Timothy 1:10). The Positivists contended that law is to guide or control behaviours that is not moral sensitive. Death Penalty if enacted is immoral for others but the question of morality of the capital punishment does not make the law illegal or null or void. If the prohibition of an action, like not consented sex, must be obeyed for it breaks the spirit of victim. It must be obeyed whether immoral due to death punishment or not. The prohibition of selling drugs is another action which may fall to immoral or moral perspective of different sectors or individuals. ( I will discuss sometime, next to this essay, the moral and philosophical issue on selling drugs, legalization and or capital punishment reactivation. Does a dealer of 0.5 grams of coke and or coke or weeds justly punished with death while the dealer of the same in large scales earning millions for whims, caprices and power and influence punished by perpetua or even by death?). The natural and positivist laws, however are united to determine the essence of law in which Natural law can find popular expression in a society's ideology (immorality of extramarital sex, murders, homosexuality (prohibited in Arab or Shariah governments, open in democratic countries, human traffickers, etc.), and positivist legal institutions might reflect ideological beliefs (communism, capitalism, socialism, neoliberalism, rule of law or meta or extra-legal, reformism or revolutionism (armed) etc.) Both are for the benefit of the society particularly peace, order, and progress which proffer from the “rule of law.” My source, Christine Sypnowich from Oxford (2016), further discussed that all these point to another and related tension is the tension between the radical ideology view and the concept of the rule of law, the centerpiece of a liberal legal order. At their most basic, the terms the rule of law, due process, procedural justice, legal formality, procedural rationality, justice as regularity, all refer to the idea that law should meet certain procedural requirements so that the individual is enabled to obey it. The Marxist view of law as ideology does, after all, have some affinities with rival views on the sources of law. The Marxist view concedes to the positivist, for example, that law emerges from the practices of society or “norms”, though the practices are extra-legal -- political, economic and social -- rather than the practices of institutional facts internal to a legal system. Social forces are ultimately determining of the content and form of a legal system. The view of law as ideology, even in its radical variants, would not deny the presence of the rule of law in the liberal legal order; indeed, the rule of law is often invoked as a paradigmatic example of legal ideology (neoliberals put its ideology to laws like privatization, deregulation,, tariff-free market, anti-trust law, etc.). The right-wing thinkers like Frederick Hayek have lauded the rule of law for its essential role in buttressing the free market. Left wing and right wing thinkers are agreed, then, on the capitalist function of the rule of law. For the left-wing theorist of ideology, however, the rule of law also has ideological aspects that mean it serves capitalist purposes in more sinister ways. For in its restraint on political and legal power, the rule of law implies that these public forms of power are the only forms of power that exist, or at least the only ones that matter. As Raz (2007) put it, generality in the law, for example, does not necessarily entail any particular commitments on how the economy or society should be organized; nor does it propagate falsity or error. Nonetheless, it is true that the proceduralism of the rule of law can be put to ideological purposes, to deflect social criticism and prevent radical change. And if enthusiasts of the rule of law place enough emphasis on procedural justice, this can reduce the likelihood that more substantive conceptions of justice will have success. Historically, societies governed by the rule of law have tended to be structured by capitalist markets, suggesting an affinity between the two sets of institutions. The rule of law can have an ideological effect even if it is not ideological in its essence. The observation of Raz is true in some countries but false in other countries particularly the Arab and monarchist countries. Neoliberals used brutal force (terrorism) or militia or local belligerents to overthrow the monarchs and governments and install their new “kings” presidents and form of government to openly legislate laws or putting neoliberal ideology of enjoying life in profit and accumulation of wealth into legal perspectives. All wings including the mainstream capitalists and neoliberals use laws and extra and metal legal procedures in advancing their ideologies. Let us go back to the question of [h]ow can President Duterte qualify to be my personal president or angel of God if he can’t obey his own laws? While my readers are figuring out to answer my question, I would like to ask another question which might be the interest of others who do not get excited by my issue about President Durterte. I did not vote for President Duterte, will the incoming President hire and appoint me to be his Secretary of Education?