Is the government weaponizing the law?

"This, instead of a whole-of-society approach that inspires unity, cooperation, confidence, and real solutions."

The sudden cease-and-desist order stopping the broadcast of ABS-CBN, followed by the disapproval at the committee level of the pending bills to renew the ABS CBN franchise, the conviction of Maria Ressa for libel, and the quick signing into law of the controversial Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) despite loud protests citing violation of the constitution and the fact that these have overtaken the urgency of COVID-19 related legislation, have raised the big question: Is the government weaponizing the law?

This is a raging controversy that an esteemed panel of legal minds tackled during the recent webinar hosted by the Philippine Bar Association. The engaging discussion focused on the dynamics and implications of how our government officials are wielding their powers.

Former Presidential spokesperson and Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo was the first speaker. He presented his position on the ABS-CBN, Ressa and the ATA controversies.

“The President’s record of not filing any libel case against any member of the media in more than 50 years speaks for itself. As we say in law, res ipsa loquitur. Undeniably, dissent against this administration’s policies is loud and uncurtailed. Statements of disagreement, objection or protest vis-a-vis the government are unceasing and widespread on all channels of media, including those in social media platforms reaching a global audience,” Panelo said.

Panelo stressed that there is no such prior restraint or subsequent punishment for those who wish to practice freedom to dissent under the Duterte presidency. As long as this speech or expression is within the ambit of constitutional guarantees, it shall not face any government interference.

On the other hand, Dean of the Far Eastern University Institute of Law Atty. Melencio S. Sta. Maria, Jr., maintains that the government is weaponizing the law citing “portentous” acts demonstrating the abuse of power.

Dean Sta. Maria said, “In an autocratic government, the press is the first target for repression. In a democratic government only the high bar of clear and present danger can curtail the freedom of the press. So, to curtail it, clever maneuvering through the legal system is utilized to give an ostensible appearance of propriety. That is why, because of this semblance, we must not be deceived by its pretentiousness. We must discern every situation taking into consideration its rightful context.”

He called the ABS-CBN situation and the conviction of Rappler’s Maria Ressa, “a macrocosm of a frontal attack against the free press.”

Quoting several harsh remarks of President Duterte threats against ABS-CBN and other media, the Dean said, “as President he is absolutely immune from suit on the basis of jurisprudence which is part of the law of the land, he is uninhibited. In my opinion, this is a form of weaponizing the law, a legal right abused to the maximum to cause fear. Using legal immunity pursuant to the law, and in effect weaponizing that law.”

“The newest weapon of all is already law, the Anti-Terrorism Act. When the law expressly combines the clear threshold of mere suspicion with the extremely vague and overly broad definition of the various offenses for which a person can be arrested on the basis of that suspicion, government and law enforcers shall have a heyday, using their own boundless imagination in arresting any person. Simply whatever their minds can conjure, will be their law. Arbitrariness and capriciousness will be the order of the day, the rule of law, eroded.”

Dean Ma. Soledad Margarita Deriquito-Mawis of the Lyceum of the Philippines University College of Law, in a concurring position said: “The law, which is supposed to guard the citizens from governmental vindictiveness, now label people’s speeches, writings, proclamations, emblems, banners, and other representations as standing to incite terrorism as a criminal act. But when does the line of freedom of expression end? When is activism not terrorism? When is critical reporting or public events not inciting to terrorism?

“What is truly worrisome is that the law becomes the potential vehicle for vindictiveness and selective retribution. After listening to our distinguished resource person, I trust and pray that the law will not be used as a weapon, as a means to legitimize a party or a person's adventure in partisan hostility,” Dean Mawis said.

Yes, the law has been weaponized and fused with divisive rhetoric cleverly crafted to create a perception of distrust and hate against the administration’s oppositors. Most harmful and totally unconstructive at this time of crisis is the continuing threats to industry leaders who continue to pour positive interventions to fight the pandemic.

These are just convenient diversions crafted to mislead and sidestep the growing anxiety and suffering of the people from the still-rising virus infections instead on focusing on a whole-of-society approach that inspires unity, cooperation, confidence, and real solutions.