BY JOHNNY DAYANG
ALL through the months that presidential mouthpiece Herminio Roque has returned to his old post, he has been pulling the leg of an entire nation, justifying one government oversight to another with arguments that throw common sense out of the window.
In recent times, when asked about the convergence of 300 people at Clark Freeport, Roque, in his usual haughty manner, indirectly supported the group’s rev gov agenda, saying it was a matter of free speech. As a lawyer, he should know better the basic aspects of the law. As if in duet with Roque’s stance, the Justice department did not even raise a whimper. Only some senators and 1987 Constitution framer Christian Monson raised definitive howls.
Surely, Roque’s passive speech ranks side by side with his earlier remark that the use of “Manila Province, Peoples Republic of China” on a product sold from Binondo was “Nonsense!” But has he even seen the angry reaction of Manila Mayor Isko Moreno to the abuse?
Under RA 3815, the Revised Penal Code, there are five factors that underscore the commission of the crime of sedition by individuals who “publicly and tumultuously” rise to attain by force, intimidation or by other extralegal means, namely:
Thwarting the implementation of a law or the holding of “popular election;” preventing the government or any public officer from exercising functions, or averting the execution of any administrative order; inflicting hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or employee; commission of any political or social act of hate or revenge against private persons or social class; and looting any person or the government of properties.
Despite these loud provisions, the Palace has lamely come out with an excuse that the hurdles that must be overcome in this time of pandemic counts more. Isn’t it that the crime of sedition is at par with insurgency whose intent is to overthrow the government or openly violate the Constitution? Surely, the act of inciting to disregard the Charter is akin to Chinese usurpation of territories that belong legally and historically to the country.
Those in sensitive positions should be more retrospect in their way of looking at issues that affect national stability and integrity. If they have been fast to the draw in acting on other headline-hogging stories, why is the Palace mouthpiece embracing an attitude that seems to depict him like he is a creature from Venus?
Jailing people for sedition should not be swept under the rug on the premise; for one, it is not a political exercise however one views it.
