Marcos' removal of Sara from NSC: Petty egotism, treasonous and illegal

PRESIDENT Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s removal of Vice President Sara Duterte and former presidents from membership in the National Security Council (NSC) represents his administration's vengeful egotism that he doesn't care that this action even risks the nation's national security. It is also illegal, as it is beyond the powers of a president to remove as a member of the NSC the vice president, who is specifically ordered to be in that post by the Administrative Code of 1987.Marcos' move was triggered by the talkative national security adviser Eduardo Año, who last Nov. 23 claimed that the "National Security Council" had condemned Sara's threat that she would have the President killed if she was ordered killed by him.Año, in fact, has again and again been ignoring the fact that he does not represent the NSC, and has often, especially in our disputes with China, implied that he is speaking for the NSC, which is a council consisting of the president, vice president, ranking officials of Congress and other top government officials.Sara, being a lawyer, is of course familiar with the law, and demanded the following day that Año prove that there was such an NSC meeting by providing her as a member of the council with the notice for such meeting as well as its minutes. If there was a meeting, why wasn't she invited? She asked angrily.The red-faced Año, of course, couldn't speak a word in reply. Marcos himself and his officials were similarly tongue-tied.BersaminInstead, Marcos retaliated by asking his executive secretary, Lucas Bersamin, to forget all the law he knew as a former chief justice, and issue an Executive Order 81 on Dec. 30 that removed the vice president as well as the surviving former presidents as members of the council.President Corazon Aquino signed, way back in December 1986 the post-martial law executive order (No. 115) that included the vice president as a member (listed second after the president) of both the NSC and its executive committee. Contrary to Año's belittling the NSC as a mere advisory body, Aquino defined it as "the lead agency of the government for coordinating the formulation of policies, relating to or with implications on the national security."Marcos summarily threw to the wastebasket 40 years of tradition of making the council a venue for national unity when the nation faces a threat to its security by including as members the vice president, even an opposition one, and the past presidents.Imagine a situation in which China in the wee hours announces that its troops would invade Subic Bay, purportedly as a defensive move to take over US missiles installed there aimed at Bajo de Masinloc that they occupy. If President Marcos couldn't be woken up from a night of heavy usage of you-know-what, nobody is authorized under his executive order to convene the NSC.AssumeBefore Marcos' order removing her from the council, Sara would have automatically assumed the chairmanship of the NSC, even if this order doesn't explicitly allow so, because she is both vice president and a member of the NSC.Marcos' order now lists, after him, the executive secretary, the Senate president and the speaker of the House as members of the NSC's executive committee. By the time these three argue who among them should chair the NSC since Marcos is incommunicado, the Chinese may have decided that since our head of state wasn't responding to their warning, they have already landed at Subic Bay.In this scenario, Marcos' decision because of his vengeful pettiness to exclude from the NSC Sara, whom he and his cabal have concluded is the biggest threat to their continuity in power after 2028, would be revealed as treason, or at the very least the dirtiest of politicking.But it is not only this scenario that Marcos would be betraying the country. His move to remove Sara and the two living (and active) past presidents — Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Rodrigo Duterte — deprives the nation of invaluable advice as well as actions in a grave national security issue, especially if the country's most likely antagonist would be China.Because of their non-belligerent stance toward China during their terms, the two former presidents would have the best assessment of what China will do, and more importantly, the widest network to negotiate with it not to push through with its plans for an invasion or, in the mostly probable scenario, not to undertake a massive trade embargo that would be economically disastrous for us.Arroyo and Duterte also still represent, even if informally, major parts of the body politic — the former in Central Luzon and much of the middle class, and the latter Mindanao and a big chunk of the lower classes. Their support for a key decision of the NSC will be crucial in solidifying the nation's support for it.PropagandaThe NSC, which Marcos has "reorganized" consists of 10 of his Cabinet secretaries and 14 leaders of the Congress, most of whom have shown little interest or none at all in our maritime and territorial disputes with China, and have merely followed, including Marcos himself, the US propaganda narrative.Only Arroyo and Duterte, if they were in the NSC in the scenario fast approaching that we are in the brink of conflict — military or economic — with China, would be the sensible voices in the council who can convince its members with a more rational stance toward China to prevent the country from being ruined.Marcos' move to "reorganize" the NSC is even illegal. While a president can modify or amend provisions in the Administrative Code, this authority is limited and must comply with the Constitution and existing laws. While the president may appoint new members of the NSC, the Administrative Code, a law enacted in 1987, specifically listed (in Title VIII, subtitle 1, chapter 2) the vice president, together with eight other Cabinet officials, as making up the NSC.While the president can remove an NSC member who is a Cabinet member by simply firing him from his Cabinet post, this move can't be done to the vice president as her authority derives directly from the people who voted for her, in fact 32.2 million of them more than Marcos' 31.6 million.There is really no rational reason for Marcos to have removed her from the NSC, if not because of petty vengeance, an overwhelming fear of her and her father, that they have to be removed from all posts by which they would be seen as much, much better — and cleaner leaders — of the land. What a president we have.Correction: An article in social media, "posted" by former Supreme Court justice Antonio Carpio which I quoted a length in my column Wednesday, wasn't written by him. The well-written, well-argued piece was by Erlano ("Kix") Francisco Gacias, a former diplomat at our Foreign Affairs Department, who is currently set to complete his law studies. I apologize for the huge error.As is my practice, I asked a former colleague of mine in government if he is sure if it was Carpio who "posted" it. He said Carpio himself "posted" it. I have put "posted" between apostrophes since here lies the source of my error and of others.By the "posting" of a piece by somebody in social media, I understand that it was written by that person. If he did not write but merely shared it, I understand that it as having been "reposted."Several other social media writers — six by my latest count — made the same mistake, since the first "re-poster" had the note "A post by ex-SC Tony Carpio." Later posters would even write: "AN URGENT POST from Justice Tony Carpio." I apologize to Kix and Tony Carpio. Still though, my error, which was repeated by many indeed bolsters the point of my column: "Middle Class Revolted by Marcos-Romualdez Gang." Carpio hasn't communicated with me over my mistake.Facebook: Rigoberto TiglaoX: @bobitiglaoWebsite: www.rigobertotiglao.com