by Rowie Azada-Palacios
My social network feeds are aflame with squabbles about whether the impeachment of Justice Renato Corona was a good thing or not.
I've been trying to make sense of the issue. In particular, I've been trying to understand why the two sides interpret the impeachment events so differently. One side sees the impeachment as a step towards the fortunate ouster of a partial, perhaps corrupt chief justice who, in their view, is willing to coddle a former president to whom he owes favors. The other side sees the impeachment--or at least the events immediately preceding it and the rhetoric surrounding it--as an attack on the very foundations of democracy.
I presume, here, of course, that both sides are honest, thinking, rational, and moral in their assessment of the issue. And I grant that what I'm about to describe is an oversimplification of views which are probably much more complex or nuanced, but I present these as an initial framework to begin thinking about the public debate that has ensued.
How can the same events be interpreted so differently? My hypothesis is that we have here a difference in paradigms. One camp, I'll call the "Moralists." The other camp, I'll call the "Institutionalists."
Let me say, at the get-go, that both camps make valid points.
The Moralists believe that the chief problem of the country is immoral personalities. The first order of business in reforming the country is getting rid of immoral personalities who are in power, and replacing them with moral people. This is more important to them than the meticulousness of institutional process, and if forced to choose between the meticulousness of procedure, and the ouster of an immoral leader, they will choose the ouster. Institutions are merely a tool towards a moral order, and if the institutions fail to uphold morality, then the institutions can be bent or reshaped.
The Institutionalists believe that the chief problem of the country is weak institutions. For them, the first order of business in reforming the country is fixing and strengthening democratic institutions. To this end, they are willing to tolerate the presence of a few "immoral" officials if they think that that is what is necessary to strengthen and maintain the integrity of institutions. In fact, Institutionalists might even dismiss the notion of "immorality" altogether, viewing moral quarrels instead as accidents of pluralism. Institutions are the remedy to pluralism: they are what allow us to work harmoniously despite our differences, and thus, they must be protected at all costs, to prevent society from descending into chaos.
Moralists look at the country in terms of personalities, and distinguish them from each other according to the categories of "moral" and "immoral." Institutionalists look at the country in terms of institutions.
An insistence on morality and a belief in institutions are not mutually exclusive, of course. Most Moralists also value institutions, and most Institutionalists also shun immorality. The difference, rather, is one of prioritization.
Moralists believe that institutions are useless if they are not led by good people. Institutionalists believe that strong institutions can help a country weather the effects of the worst leadership.
Let's take the Chief Justice as an example. Moralists look at Corona and see a PERSON, an immoral one, someone who has been partial in his decisions. They are happy to see this immoral person ousted, and are willing to tolerate a certain degree of "railroading" if the end-goal of ridding the government of immoral persons is achieved.
Institutionalists look at Corona and see the INSTITUTION he symbolizes, the Supreme Court. Whether or not they like Corona, they see him primarily as the leader of the Supreme Court, and attacks on him (not just the impeachment, but also the rhetorical attacks) as an assault on the Supreme Court. They are upset that the Supreme Court is being attacked, and worry that this could weaken the institutional order that was created by the 1987 Constitution.
Who is right? Each side has a justifiable point. But it's easy to see why the two sides will never agree on this particular issue.
My social network feeds are aflame with squabbles about whether the impeachment of Justice Renato Corona was a good thing or not.
I've been trying to make sense of the issue. In particular, I've been trying to understand why the two sides interpret the impeachment events so differently. One side sees the impeachment as a step towards the fortunate ouster of a partial, perhaps corrupt chief justice who, in their view, is willing to coddle a former president to whom he owes favors. The other side sees the impeachment--or at least the events immediately preceding it and the rhetoric surrounding it--as an attack on the very foundations of democracy.
image from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/files/2011/12/aquino-corona.jpg
I presume, here, of course, that both sides are honest, thinking, rational, and moral in their assessment of the issue. And I grant that what I'm about to describe is an oversimplification of views which are probably much more complex or nuanced, but I present these as an initial framework to begin thinking about the public debate that has ensued.
How can the same events be interpreted so differently? My hypothesis is that we have here a difference in paradigms. One camp, I'll call the "Moralists." The other camp, I'll call the "Institutionalists."
Let me say, at the get-go, that both camps make valid points.
The Moralists believe that the chief problem of the country is immoral personalities. The first order of business in reforming the country is getting rid of immoral personalities who are in power, and replacing them with moral people. This is more important to them than the meticulousness of institutional process, and if forced to choose between the meticulousness of procedure, and the ouster of an immoral leader, they will choose the ouster. Institutions are merely a tool towards a moral order, and if the institutions fail to uphold morality, then the institutions can be bent or reshaped.
The Institutionalists believe that the chief problem of the country is weak institutions. For them, the first order of business in reforming the country is fixing and strengthening democratic institutions. To this end, they are willing to tolerate the presence of a few "immoral" officials if they think that that is what is necessary to strengthen and maintain the integrity of institutions. In fact, Institutionalists might even dismiss the notion of "immorality" altogether, viewing moral quarrels instead as accidents of pluralism. Institutions are the remedy to pluralism: they are what allow us to work harmoniously despite our differences, and thus, they must be protected at all costs, to prevent society from descending into chaos.
Moralists look at the country in terms of personalities, and distinguish them from each other according to the categories of "moral" and "immoral." Institutionalists look at the country in terms of institutions.
An insistence on morality and a belief in institutions are not mutually exclusive, of course. Most Moralists also value institutions, and most Institutionalists also shun immorality. The difference, rather, is one of prioritization.
Moralists believe that institutions are useless if they are not led by good people. Institutionalists believe that strong institutions can help a country weather the effects of the worst leadership.
Let's take the Chief Justice as an example. Moralists look at Corona and see a PERSON, an immoral one, someone who has been partial in his decisions. They are happy to see this immoral person ousted, and are willing to tolerate a certain degree of "railroading" if the end-goal of ridding the government of immoral persons is achieved.
Institutionalists look at Corona and see the INSTITUTION he symbolizes, the Supreme Court. Whether or not they like Corona, they see him primarily as the leader of the Supreme Court, and attacks on him (not just the impeachment, but also the rhetorical attacks) as an assault on the Supreme Court. They are upset that the Supreme Court is being attacked, and worry that this could weaken the institutional order that was created by the 1987 Constitution.
Who is right? Each side has a justifiable point. But it's easy to see why the two sides will never agree on this particular issue.
Posts
great article...!!! my part - i have been thinking; whether or not the impeachment should have taken place in the first place... what say you ma'am?? is it a right move??? cheers
ReplyDeleteInteresting point, there are however some who recognize the need to establish the "immorality" of CJ Corona so we do wait with anticipation the proceedings and the points that will be raised therein. Ironically, the articles of impeachment are still unknown to many and most glaringly a lot of the administration congressmen who signed them on orders from the party leadership. There lies the weakness in their argument - moralists MUST take the moral high ground otherwise they are no better than those they so passionately accuse. Personally, I'm not convinced. - johnnyblade
ReplyDeleteThere's another angle to this which does not look at single individuals or institutions. Corona is not to be treated as separate from a network of corruption that GMA put in place. No branch of government was untouched in (1) ensuring she won the elections (2) milking the treasury and (3) making sure she would get away with all this later. When she did this, she did not agonize over the possibility that the electoral system or the judicial system or the legislative system etc etc would be weakened or fatally compromised. It will take us a hundred years to get through this mess if we had to agonize over what she did not worry over. I think the nature of the current beast is more a police matter than anything. In the U.S. they have the RICO(Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act which they've used to defang Mafia groups, drug cartels, etc. We should run after GMA and her cohorts as a criminal conspiracy, pluck them out wherever they are--Supreme Court or government corporation (not worry too much about "destroying institutions") and get on with our lives.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 1 condemns based on popular opinion that everyone in government is corrupt. Until all the facts are carefully scrutinized I would hold of judgment not only on her "cronies" but on GMA herself. The whole point of a fair trial is to avoid a witch trial then a lynch mob afterwards. More so when her suppossed evil and the subsequent righteous opposition was used as by absolutely everyone in the previous elections in order to win votes. Leave it to silver-tongued demagogues to turn their political rivals into public enemies and make the people think they came to that conclusion on their own.
ReplyDeleteInstitutions out last people. The solution to weak and so called corrupt institutions is not to weaken them further. It is the difference between rule of law and rule of man. While your "training" obviously emphasizes the spirit of the law but part of following its spirit is that it cannot be changed at a whim. Ethics being the practice of principled action, law being the externalization of a society's expressed ethic. To avoid the anything goes school of morality standing by a code, even if it is not legislated by the divine by man, is still a moral choice. It is easy to make the mistake that in the dichotomy presented by this paper, institutionalists are by extrapolation immoral.
I expect better from people. To condemn what you do not understand. People do not understand the legal system and the proper processes so they condemn them. How many of you have actually been brought before a court and put through the process. Without hearing both sides and cautiously pursuing the truth you leap to conclusions ready made for you by those who want to manipulate you.
This whole premise of an unjust system needing extrajudicial reform has been used before. The evils of Erap propelling GMA through illegal means, by popular demand no doubt, to a position to exploit the system.
IF there is any institution in Philippine politics that should be changed it is the one that assumes we can change the rules whenever we want if enough of us want to at anytime.
Popular consent does not make something right.
"Popular consent does not make something right."
DeleteYes!!!
Very well written article, Ma'am Palacios. Based on your description, I think I'm an institutionalist. :)
ReplyDelete-- 4th yr student at Ateneo Law
The problem with the moralist paradigm is that it starts with a popular personality promising change and usually degrades to oppressive systems. It brings to mind: Fidel Castro, Khomeini, Gadaffi, and even Hitler. Fr. Bernas and Belinda Cunanan have said as much. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that discussions on PNoy would contain allusions to Fidel Castro and Hitler.
ReplyDelete