A government of laws kunu

LETTERS FROM THE AGNO
March L. Fianza

“We are a government of laws and not of men.” This has been re-stated more than a hundred times by more than a hundred different great writers and statesmen from Greece to the Americas. But I heard it said about a dozen times from just one person, the most honorable Mayor Domogan in his news interviews where he defended the issuances of an earth-balling permit, a tree-cutting permit and a building permit for the expansion of SM Baguio over a forested part of Luneta Hill. And when I hear it said by the same guy over and over again, its meaning seems to change every time. Today, the statement of many great men is easier said than appropriately applied.

To be honest to myself, so as not to be biased to personal feelings and to look for its true meaning, I sought the help of the internet. The phrase dates back to the ancient Greeks but was preserved in history by John Adams (1735-1826), American lawyer, politician and 2nd President of the United States. He used the phrase in the Boston Gazette in 1774 and was interpreted to mean that “we don’t follow the whims of demagogues believing they were demigods and setting themselves above the law because of an exalted position such as King, Potentate, Emperor, President or Legislator. The law is meant to reign supremely as a definition of justice and right action.”

It also means that no single person makes the laws, except where this concept comes in contrast with itself. As in the English system of nobility, the nobles could not be arrested, except by the king's order. The kings make laws and decide which laws were to be enforced and which would not. Now can someone tell me, do we now look up to the Hon. Domogan or Sec. Paje or Sec. Ochoa as “Kings?” Or are they demigods that set them above the law?

The great men in the internet further interpreted that it is “not anybody’s right to decide solely by virtue of his elected office which laws will or will not be enforced. It is not even their right to decide the weight of law to be enforced. It means it is not their right to say which one is a misdemeanor and which one is a felony. In the case of the issuance of permits for SM, did the concerned government agencies follow that?

It also means that “laws are to be interpreted objectively, and are to be applied to everyone regardless of rank or position in society, regardless of reputations or personal relationships with others. A government of men, on the other hand, would be one that is subjective, depending on the relationship of those enforcing the laws and those against whom the laws might be enforced.” Was the law fairly applied on everyone?

Under www.what would the founders think.com, the question was asked: “Do we have a government of laws and not of men?” John Locke, one of the “idols” of the Founders argued that the preservation of property, life, liberty and estates is the foundation of civil order. “Rules must not to be varied but must only be one – that is applicable to the rich and poor, to the favorite at Court, and the Country Man at the plough.” The rule of law means that “justice cannot be fixed on a whim to favor one group over another, or enforced for some groups but ignored to the benefit of others.” Has this been followed by DENR when it issued the SM permits to earth-ball and cut trees, and for the city building official to issue a building permit?

Going deeper into the night, I read that Greek teacher Aristotle likewise taught his students that the “law should govern” and those in power should be “servants of the law.” He also differentiated the idea of rule “of” law from rule “by” law. Aristotle said that the difference is that under the “rule of law,” it serves as a check against the abuse of power, while under “rule by law,” the law can serve as a mere tool for a government that suppresses in a legalistic fashion. I hope Aristotle’s interpretations can help Baguio folks distinguish which rule did DENR and our “honorables” pursued.

After two so-called public hearings for the SM expansion project, the city council committee on environment report was approved. The result of the voting for and against was not good. Only five voted against the committee report under councilor environmentalist ErdolfoBalajadia who happens to chair the Baguio Regreening Movement, previously an environment group that has developed into a political group. They were councilors Richard Carino, Peter Fianza, PoppoCosalan, Phillian Alan and DinneyYangot.

Again, I consulted the great philosophers in the internet and I was told that the purpose of legislation is to come up with laws that will be for “the good of the whole” or the “common good” or the “public good” and “the interest of the people.” Certainly, the committee report was not for the “good of the whole” because it was only good for SM, for Paje, and the few who will benefit from the report.

It was not for the “common good” or “public good” because instead of a legislation that could have called the attention of the DENR to reconsider its issuance of the permits, it instead further endorsed the permits. And surely, Balajadia’s committee report is not for the “interest of the people” because it is only for the interest of SM and those who will or who have benefited from it.

Then came Holy Week. They prayed as Christians but I did not know that all their prayers were only pretenses, because in a little more than 24 hours after Easter Sunday or early dawn of Tuesday, the trees started to fall one, two, three, four, five… The cutting was not done during the day. Despite their permits that they claimed were legally acquired, they were guilty and shameful of killing the trees at daytime. So they had to do it like thieves in the night. Passersby, women, men and even children cried at the sight of trees being killed. But their tears could not stop the chain saws. Even people who cover that area daily – taxi drivers and peanut vendors who cared less about the issue at first because they were busy looking for bread, commented “sobrang matakaw” or “SM.”

Second night, they continued killing the trees. Immediately, the “Save 182 Movement” sought the court’s help for the issuance of a temporary environment protection order but the judge who was to issue the order suddenly got “sick.” Good, the pairing judge issued the TEPO or TRO. But this was not honored by SM because according to their lawyer who was armed to the teeth with technicalities, the order was not received properly.

I feel that due to the impunity of the PPP (public-private partnership) of government officials and SM in trampling on the concerns and sentiments of people, hence, spontaneous multi-sectoral protest rallies were held since January, the latest of which was led by Bishop CarlitoCenzon and the “Save 182 Movement” last Thursday. This has not resulted to chaos yet as wrongly reported by the ANC of ABS-CBN, but if it did, there is no one else to blame but the “roots of all evils” – the issuance of permits by DENR and the city, the unrelenting support by city officials, and their “sorry, we can not do anything” statement. After all, the honorable mayor is correct. We are a government of laws, not of men. –marchfianza777@yahoo.com