The Arroyo Presidency started with a serious constitutional question. Can a Vice President take over as President when there is no vacancy in the Office of the President? 

Indeed, there was an abnormal situation then. The so-called EDSA II forced the then President Estrada out of Malacanang. But Arroyo and her minions refused to characterize it as a revolution. A revolution would have meant the removal of all, including Arroyo, then the Vice President. It would have meant a people-determined succession. Maybe a new election would have been required. And so Arroyo and her cohorts insisted on a constitutional succession after an extra-constitutional phenomenon.

And so before the Supreme Court, the question was raised. Was there a vacancy in Malacanang after President Estrada physically left the place? The Constitution, then, provided only 4 ways by which a vacancy in the Office of the President can occur. These are death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation (Section 8, Article VII, Philippine Constitution). But President Estrada did not die. Neither was he permanently disabled. He was not impeached and hence not removed from office. Neither did he resign. Fortunately for Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the Supreme Court, recognizing the extraordinary circumstances then, introduced a new cause for vacancy – constructive resignation. Thus, the Supreme Court declared, President Estrada did not actually resign, but all his acts then amounted to a resignation. And so even if then President Estrada did not resign, a constitutional vacancy in the office of the President was declared to have occurred.

That decision was what legitimized Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s presidency. But more than that, it apparently gave Mrs. Arroyo the courage, no the temerity, to modify the constitution, to suit her every whim.

Thus, when the very same people’s wrath that put her in power was directed at her, she declared a “state of rebellion” to justify warrantless arrests, raids on media organizations, and prohibition against mass actions. No such “declaration” could be found in the Constitution. Instead, the Constitution allows a President to suspend the privilege of writ of habeas corpus or to declare martial law. But the constitutional means to suppress rebellion require very strict conditions. It requires the President to justify to Congress the reasons for such declarations and it allows even the courts to pass upon the validity of the factual basis of the same. Being very unpopular as she was (and still is), she knew she could not get away with. And so she did, what was not provided for in the Constitution. She declared a “State of Rebellion”, and she did so twice!

Twice, before the Supreme Court, Arroyo’s constitutional modification was allowed. Her “state of rebellion” was held to be the chief executive’s declaration of what was.  The Supreme Court declared that such a declaration cannot amount to the suspension of the privilege of the writ, nor could it justify warrantless arrests, but it held that as Chief Executive, Arroyo could declare a “state of rebellion” and call on the armed forces to restore order in accordance with law. In effect, the Supreme Court’s decision allowed Arroyo to invent a heretofore legally unknown “state of rebellion” as long as she acts in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Though that case was supposed to remind the Chief Executive that her powers are limited by the Constittuion, Arroyo deemed it to be a psychological victory.

And then the Senate investigations got too close for comfort. Already, the Senate was getting credible testimonies from members of the Cabinet that the President knew of the bribe offers for the approval of the controversial ZTE Broadband deal. Secretary Romulo Neri, then the head of the NEDA, was ready to tell all once legally compelled to do so. And so, again, Arroyo challenged our Constitution. Notwithstanding the constitutional principle of balance of power that puts the executive on equal footing with the Legislature, notwithstanding the Senate’s power to conduct investigations in aid of legislation to ensure checks and balances, Arroyo prohibited her Cabinet from disclosing anything to the Senate. Invoking “executive privilege” Arroyo insisted that her Cabinet cannot be compelled to testify before the Senate.

This led to another Arroyo victory in the Supreme Court. Using the doctrine of “executive privilege”, Arroyo was able to justify before the Court her insistence on prohibiting her cabinet secretaries from testifying before the Senate. Consequently, Secretary Neri, and all those in the Cabinet who knew much of the truth, were forever barred from letting us know what really happened.

The same “executive privilege” was again invoked by Arroyo to keep from the Senate the details of the negotiations with Japan regarding the treaty that reportedly will allow the dumping of Japanes garbage on our soil in exchange for lifting the ban on the deployment of Japayukis. Executive privilege is now the excuse to keep the people in the dark about transactions negotiated and approved by this presidency.

Emboldened by all these court victories, Arroyo is at it again. This time, she authorized the Memorandum of Agreement that agreed to create a “Bangsa Moro Juridical Entity.” A new muslim state within our state, some say. An agreement that reportedly authorizes the Bangsa Moro people to have their own territory, their own currency, their own autonomous state. Needless to state, such an agreement violates our Constitution, and it does so shamelessly!

Although the Supreme Court has yet to decisively rule on the validity of this agreement, the fact that Arroyo has brought such an agreement to the fore should be enough to anger us. How far shall she push the limits of our Constitution? Mrs. Arroyo is apparently not scared of the Supreme Court. But she should be scared of us, the people. Mrs. Arroyo must realize that every time she challenges the constitution, she is challenging the people’s will. Mrs. Arroyo must understand that every unconstitutional move she makes is not simply a legal challenge to constitutional limits, it is a political challenge to the people’s sovereign power. The Supreme Court decisions have apparently failed to remind her of these political truths. Maybe it is time for us to remind her of how much she has tested our patience.