Super Supreme
May 8, 2006 | 12:00am
We’re getting our signals crossed again, and this time it’s not just banter from different sides of the issue. Watching (and listening, mostly) to the news these days would probably have been similar to the cacophony of Babel-like voices in biblical days of old – lots of raucous, incomprehensible and meaningless babble.
During the last couple of weeks, the Supreme Court has put some clarity and common sense to the confusing and (often deliberately) misleading statements made about the controversial orders by the President recently. Whether you support President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo or are one of those pushing for her removal (or resignation) from office, these Supreme Court rulings do highlight a grave and unsettling – let’s just say, omission – on the part of the Office of the President and the top-level advisers that provide the President counsel.
Is it really acceptable for a government administration to have made so many unconstitutional decisions? Does this not betray either a serious deficiency in constitutional competence or a malicious effort to thwart or frustrate constitutional, and thus legal, processes on the part of those who made these decisions? In a democratic society where accountability is the foremost device for keeping public servants in check, can such a propensity, or more appropriately, pattern of illegality be condoned, tolerated and forgotten?
I pose these questions because the unequivocal stand of the Supreme Court can only mean that, in any issue raised before them, one side is shown to have a justified grievance, and the other side is shown to have done wrong. A multiple incidences of unconstitutional (thus, illegal) acts have been made by the current administration, according to the highest court of the land. What happens next?
As a concerned observer and a corporate and business communications professional, I tend to look at this fiery issue and focus on the manner by which these issues have been handled by both sides. In many instances, the way in which we communicate our message can spell the difference between being able to win over the sympathy and acceptance of your target audience as much as the message itself. Legal implications aside, public opinion is a powerful force in our society, clearly a gambit that the Charter Change advocates are employing with their signature campaign.
Going back to the crossed signals bit, observe how both camps claim victory after the Supreme Court rulings. Those who took issue with Executive Order 464, the Calibrated Pre-emptive Response (CPR), and the warrantless arrest and press freedom curtailment clauses of Proclamation 1017 (no, we don’t lump them all as opposition, as administration spokesmen do, because not all those who find these presidential directives reprehensible are from the opposition), find the court rulings favorable to their cause.
On the other hand, administration officials claim the same rulings bolstered their decisions as well. The court did rule that PD 1017 was constitutional (although the core issues of the proclamation – the warrantless arrests and muzzling of the media, were found unconstitutional), since the President may declare a state of emergency to safeguard government and the nation. CPR, they say, was just another name for maximum tolerance, which is what the court said was the right thing. EO464 qualifies top-level officials and the military to seek clearance from the President when the issues involve national security.
And so it goes. Everyone twists the information according to how it suits their purposes. In current management parlance, one may think such a situation is a "win-win," both sides being able to benefit. But, in truth, it’s more like "win-lose-win," both opposing sides claim a win, but at the center of it all, the public loses. To the Filipino Everyman, how can two opposing groups win at the same time? It befuddles the mind.
Clearly, our public personalities (and the multitude of advisers behind them) have mastered that modern art of spin. Watching the current Executive Secretary, Press Secretary and Chief of Staff in the news, I dare say the President did choose the best possible people to tackle the difficult responsibility of communicating the administration’s messages. Dedicated and full of conviction, this trio are now able to effectively convey government position on important issues, including their take on these latest Supreme Court decisions.
There are, however, certain truths that should not, and can not, be sugar-coated nor given a different spin. When the Supreme Court makes a ruling, it is meant to be the definitive interpretation of the laws of the land. What will it serve any Filipino, whether she be the President or a poor farmer from the hinterlands of Mindoro, to flout or dismiss in a cavalier fashion such important directions? Given that our Supreme Court has been highly esteemed and respected over the years – without giving anyone reason to doubt its integrity (even after it ruled on President Arroyo’s legitimacy after President Estrada’s departure from Malacañang), there is no excuse to doubt it.
Which is what putting a spin to the Supreme Court rulings is. For some inexplicable reason, everyone seems hell-bent on "winning" over the other side. Both sides "claim victory" every time the Supreme Court makes public its decisions. Is the Supreme Court, therefore, a venue where political and legal gladiators engage in deadly combat, where there is a victor and a vanquished? Whatever happened to public welfare and the common good? The 88 million Filipinos who watch this sordid combat in the sidelines – what are they, collateral damage?
These series of unconstitutional/illegal decisions inflicted harm on a number of Filipino citizens: those who make up the Daily Tribune, whose freedom of expression were repressed and curtailed by PD1017, sociologist Randy David and other protesters who were arrested without due cause, the Congress and the Filipino people who were denied their right to know the truth from their public servants – these are but some of those whose rights were trampled because of ill-designed and illegal political decisions.
Our country has been in a political tailspin for quite some time now, without any signs of let-up. I am glad that the Supreme Court continues its tradition of integrity and clear-headedness, even in the middle of these swirling controversies.
Perhaps it is time for other public servants to take the court’s moral (and legal) high ground and cut the bull. No more spins, no more doublespeak. Just plain, simple language will do. In many corporate communicators’ arsenal of effective crisis communication’s strategy, owning up to a mistake does wonders to restoring credibility. Sure, a couple of heads may roll, but if we were really serious about "moving on," we might just want to take inspiration from the Supreme Court’s unwavering service, not just to government, but to the welfare of the people and democracy. In my book, the Supreme Court is a super-sized helping of everything we need in government today.
During the last couple of weeks, the Supreme Court has put some clarity and common sense to the confusing and (often deliberately) misleading statements made about the controversial orders by the President recently. Whether you support President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo or are one of those pushing for her removal (or resignation) from office, these Supreme Court rulings do highlight a grave and unsettling – let’s just say, omission – on the part of the Office of the President and the top-level advisers that provide the President counsel.
Is it really acceptable for a government administration to have made so many unconstitutional decisions? Does this not betray either a serious deficiency in constitutional competence or a malicious effort to thwart or frustrate constitutional, and thus legal, processes on the part of those who made these decisions? In a democratic society where accountability is the foremost device for keeping public servants in check, can such a propensity, or more appropriately, pattern of illegality be condoned, tolerated and forgotten?
I pose these questions because the unequivocal stand of the Supreme Court can only mean that, in any issue raised before them, one side is shown to have a justified grievance, and the other side is shown to have done wrong. A multiple incidences of unconstitutional (thus, illegal) acts have been made by the current administration, according to the highest court of the land. What happens next?
As a concerned observer and a corporate and business communications professional, I tend to look at this fiery issue and focus on the manner by which these issues have been handled by both sides. In many instances, the way in which we communicate our message can spell the difference between being able to win over the sympathy and acceptance of your target audience as much as the message itself. Legal implications aside, public opinion is a powerful force in our society, clearly a gambit that the Charter Change advocates are employing with their signature campaign.
Going back to the crossed signals bit, observe how both camps claim victory after the Supreme Court rulings. Those who took issue with Executive Order 464, the Calibrated Pre-emptive Response (CPR), and the warrantless arrest and press freedom curtailment clauses of Proclamation 1017 (no, we don’t lump them all as opposition, as administration spokesmen do, because not all those who find these presidential directives reprehensible are from the opposition), find the court rulings favorable to their cause.
On the other hand, administration officials claim the same rulings bolstered their decisions as well. The court did rule that PD 1017 was constitutional (although the core issues of the proclamation – the warrantless arrests and muzzling of the media, were found unconstitutional), since the President may declare a state of emergency to safeguard government and the nation. CPR, they say, was just another name for maximum tolerance, which is what the court said was the right thing. EO464 qualifies top-level officials and the military to seek clearance from the President when the issues involve national security.
And so it goes. Everyone twists the information according to how it suits their purposes. In current management parlance, one may think such a situation is a "win-win," both sides being able to benefit. But, in truth, it’s more like "win-lose-win," both opposing sides claim a win, but at the center of it all, the public loses. To the Filipino Everyman, how can two opposing groups win at the same time? It befuddles the mind.
Clearly, our public personalities (and the multitude of advisers behind them) have mastered that modern art of spin. Watching the current Executive Secretary, Press Secretary and Chief of Staff in the news, I dare say the President did choose the best possible people to tackle the difficult responsibility of communicating the administration’s messages. Dedicated and full of conviction, this trio are now able to effectively convey government position on important issues, including their take on these latest Supreme Court decisions.
There are, however, certain truths that should not, and can not, be sugar-coated nor given a different spin. When the Supreme Court makes a ruling, it is meant to be the definitive interpretation of the laws of the land. What will it serve any Filipino, whether she be the President or a poor farmer from the hinterlands of Mindoro, to flout or dismiss in a cavalier fashion such important directions? Given that our Supreme Court has been highly esteemed and respected over the years – without giving anyone reason to doubt its integrity (even after it ruled on President Arroyo’s legitimacy after President Estrada’s departure from Malacañang), there is no excuse to doubt it.
Which is what putting a spin to the Supreme Court rulings is. For some inexplicable reason, everyone seems hell-bent on "winning" over the other side. Both sides "claim victory" every time the Supreme Court makes public its decisions. Is the Supreme Court, therefore, a venue where political and legal gladiators engage in deadly combat, where there is a victor and a vanquished? Whatever happened to public welfare and the common good? The 88 million Filipinos who watch this sordid combat in the sidelines – what are they, collateral damage?
These series of unconstitutional/illegal decisions inflicted harm on a number of Filipino citizens: those who make up the Daily Tribune, whose freedom of expression were repressed and curtailed by PD1017, sociologist Randy David and other protesters who were arrested without due cause, the Congress and the Filipino people who were denied their right to know the truth from their public servants – these are but some of those whose rights were trampled because of ill-designed and illegal political decisions.
Our country has been in a political tailspin for quite some time now, without any signs of let-up. I am glad that the Supreme Court continues its tradition of integrity and clear-headedness, even in the middle of these swirling controversies.
Perhaps it is time for other public servants to take the court’s moral (and legal) high ground and cut the bull. No more spins, no more doublespeak. Just plain, simple language will do. In many corporate communicators’ arsenal of effective crisis communication’s strategy, owning up to a mistake does wonders to restoring credibility. Sure, a couple of heads may roll, but if we were really serious about "moving on," we might just want to take inspiration from the Supreme Court’s unwavering service, not just to government, but to the welfare of the people and democracy. In my book, the Supreme Court is a super-sized helping of everything we need in government today.
* * *
E-mail bongo@vasia.com or bongo@campaignsandgrey.net for comments, questions and suggestions. Thank you for communicating.
BrandSpace Articles
<
>
