Accountability of public officials
| VIEWPOINTS |
 |
| Archbishop Oscar V. Cruz |
“The President… may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of… treason…” (Philippine Constitution, Article XI, Section 2)
The above cited basic ethico-legal provision carried three salient connotations. First, it speaks of an indictment — “impeachment” — that is not only inherently serious but also rather extensive in shameful implications. Then, it points at the causal premise thereof in terms of the gross crime — “treason” — in form of not simply betraying a public trust but also by way of aiding the enemy. Lastly, it is a legislation that only comes from the Fundamental Law of the Land — the Constitution — but also drawn and sealed precisely by the maternal origin of the public official in mind.
This in no way means that impeachment is in order, that treason has been committed, that the Constitution has been violated. Neither does it intend to imply that the wheels of justice should now make the turns precisely due to transgression of the fundamental law of the land. This is merely envisioned to call more serious attention to the composite phenomenon of public funds being diverted to this or that local rebel group that in fact repeatedly kills not only these and those members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines but also constituents of the civilian Philippine National Police..... MORE
Source: The Daily Tribune
URL: http://www.tribuneonline.org/commentary/20111115com7.html
1 comment
kasi po, bishop, tinutulak po ng kalbong agila ang substate. maging bukas po ang isip at pagaralang mabuti ang mga bagay.bagay.
"Something is definitely wrong with this picture: Talks go on. Money grants go on. Rebellion goes on. Killings go on. Hence: What happened to all the talks before? How were the then and now money grants spent? When will the rebellion stop — if ever? Or are these questions irrelevant even to the present administration that remains bound by a Constitution with maternal “imprimatur”?"
Post a Comment