A GROUP that calls itself Mayor Rodrigo Roa Duterte National Executive Coordinating Committee (MRRD-NECC) is calling for a revolutionary government led by President Duterte.
Under its proposal, the RevGov would replace the constitutional government with an authoritarian government.
The authoritarian rule would mean it could exercise all the powers it wants: change or replace officials and personnel in departments and offices; modify, suspend or abolish laws, regulations, structures, and processes; and use the country's resources and otherwise govern whichever way they prefer.
Who would be the ruler? It says the new government would be "led" by Duterte. It would then be an extension of the Duterte administration, with the stark difference that it would no longer operate under the Constitution.
What RevGov will do
A RevGov could do two major things it might not be able to do, given the Covid-19 pandemic and the little time left for the Duterte administration:
[1] It could free itself of the constitutional and legal limits on its power to change the rules and manage public dissent; and thus
[2] It could change the rules -- among others, term limit of public officials, policy against political dynasties, authority of national government over local governments -- even without public debate and formal approval by the people as required in the Constitution.
Definitely, administration under a RevGov could speed up the key charter changes, including the shift to federalism and right of elected officials to stay in office for as long as what would please them.
A plan, not a plot
A revolutionary government, being an assault on the Constitution, is supposed to be planned in secret. It's mostly a plot, a conspiracy. And it is done against the will of the republican and democratic government in place, not with its consent and blessing. It ousts present rulers, not keeps them in power under the new authority.
About 300 people reportedly met at Clark Freeport to organize MRRD-NECC. That, before a smaller group began promoting it like a new business product: publicly and with a lot of hype.
Organizers must have asked the president beforehand. It is not known if he had given them his blessing, although some time ago he publicly floated the idea of a revolutionary government. And the MRRD-NECC organizers sought a meeting with the top police official and maybe the high military commander. Asking the public officials to dump a Constitution that they're bound to defend would be weird. But it's hardly novel.
Oath to Constitution
Government officials, elected or appointed, from the civilian persons in authority to the men and women in uniform, are bound by oath to uphold and protect the Constitution. You don't publicly invite them to abandon the Constitution and set up a banana government with the same rulers in place.
It's awkward. And it flirts with the criminal act of inciting to sedition, with the incumbent law enforcers complicit to the crime. The law on inciting to sedition (Art. 142 of the Revised Penal Code) may have enough to cover it: statements or writings that "lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community." And could there be rebellion, when the "revolt" is staged with the help of the sitting rulers themselves?
But they may be experimenting with some untried theory in law, as they did in past. Those prosecuted may argue that they're not inciting people to sedition when the president himself, with the cooperation of the police and military, would submit to, and agree to lead, the new form of government. And who'd sue them in the first place?
Plan hooted down
To the credit of those in the hierarchy of power affected, lawmakers, PNP and AFP top officials, the opposition -- along with church leaders, lawyers groups, and others in the private sector -- have slammed the proposal. Even MalacaƱang stepped back a bit, saying it would focus on the more pressing problem of the pandemic. But it didn't quell the discussion: people are free to voice their opinion about it, spokesman Harry Roque said.
Some administration critics are being blunt. Former senator Antonio Trillanes IV asked, "What the f**k, what are these guys smoking?" Vice President Leni Robredo tagged it "malaking kalokohan, a big joke."
Others call it as it is: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) says the RevGov is "repugnant to constitutionalism." The Catholic bishops group CBCP says it is "immoral," apparently referring to the present leaders benefiting from the rules they themselves would change.
Small comfort
A Duterte partisan was heard on radio, saying people should be glad that those who're advocating for a revolutionary government are being "open and transparent" about their proposal.
Small comfort though. That does not guarantee that they are not plotting other moves towards the same goal.