Withdrawing support is inciting to sedition

I wrote sometime ago, here in this column, that it was biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall who reportedly paraphrased a saying attributed to Voltaire. Accordingly, the 18th-century French philosopher François-Marie Arouet, whose nom de plume was Voltaire said: “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” This philosophical thought underscores the foundation of the principle of the freedom of speech and gives due importance of allowing diverse viewpoints to be expressed. Constitutional rights lawyer Michael Troy explains that the meaning of this quote is that we “value freedom of speech, and the right of everyone to express their opinion, even if that opinion is one we do not like.”

I remember Voltaire and stint as a teacher of Constitutional law because few days ago, I saw the Facebook posts of a couple of vloggers asking their brothers in uniform to “withdraw their support” from President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. Their bold rant sounded more than just unorthodox charivari and hit me like a lightning bolt in a clear blue sky. I was shocked. Similar declaration made by the armed forces of the Philippines during the so-called second EDSA revolution signaled the last day of the presidency of Joseph Ejercito Estrada. In so many serious words, the recent vloggers claimed, in a most disturbing manner, that they were no longer supporting the government of President Marcos Jr., and the president himself, and they would want their comrades in arms to follow their act which was to support instead the vice president. Their disdainful talk, swagger if you may, looked convincing. Honestly speaking though, it took me time to reflect whether I should treat whatever they uttered in the light of the Voltaire thought.

We all know that in our democratic space, criticism on any branch of government, no matter how severe, is within the range of the constitutionally guaranteed liberty of speech. However, the statements made by the two vloggers, both retired military officers (one a general and the other a major) seemed not the kind of disagreeable criticisms protected by the fundamental law that we are theoretically bound to defend till death. Indeed, from where I sat, watching intently their FB posts, they apparently asked their fellow military men to break the chain of command and challenge the legal order. Of all horrors, their words tended to disturb or obstruct the president in executing the functions of his office. Their pronouncements, thus, appeared to me to be inciting their military brothers, in particular and our countrymen, in general, to sedition.

I submit that it is in defense of our republic to investigate these vloggers and where evidence warrants prosecute them for inciting to sedition. If these podcasters believe that they are acting within their rights, the courts will give them the forum to show that their protestations are protected speech. In the interest of the security of the state though, they should not be allowed to use the freedom of speech in order to destroy the very government under which this freedom is guaranteed. That is what due process demands as well. The earlier this defensive action of the state is done, the better. Our government must not delay even for one day more. This Marcos administration should use to the hilt all available government forces to put to an end to what these personalities are doing lest we face EDSA 3.