PRESIDENTS’ QUOTES: With so many politicians and comedians talking at the same time, with different agenda in mind, the post-Oakwood picture is in danger of getting muddled and the successful response to the coup threat being trivialized.

To keep us on track, we’re reprinting some statements of President Arroyo on the matter:

On Indictment of Coup Participants — “The issue here is plain criminal justice, not political persecution or harassment. All government actions are based on evidence, not speculation or rumor. There will be no indictments made on mere suspicion. This will not be a political circus. It will be a trial on the merits befitting the high standards of our democratic system.”

On Congressional Investigations — “There has been an overt attempt to overthrow the government by force of arms. I ask the members of the legislature not to legitimatize a criminal act that unfolded before our very eyes, or to try to impede government efforts to get to the root of the plot. Once and for all, let us show to our people and the world that we condemn all means to gain political power outside the ballot. This is our solemn duty.”

On Military Adventurism — “This must be the last time military adventurism is allowed to rear its head in our country. The formidable challenges we are facing do not allow room for these attacks, however weak they may be, upon the heart of our political system. Poverty, terrorism, drugs, ignorance, disease — these are the enemies we must vanquish without having to contend with traitors within the democratic polity itself.”

On State of Rebellion — “The state of rebellion will continue until we wrap up the residual threats. This must not be a cause for undue alarm, but we do not want our people to develop a false sense of complacency. We will keep the state of rebellion as a mantle of protection for our people as they go on with their day-to-day activities. Normalization has set in and must not be disturbed, but the need for vigilance is there and our eyes and ears should be open round the clock.”

End of presidential quotes.

* * *

ON REBELS’ SIDE: Many concerned citizens are asking why some big-name politicians who had witnessed the mounting of a failed coup d’etat last Sunday insist on siding with rebel soldiers rather than the loyal forces who quelled the Oakwood part of it.

In this cut-and-dried case of the rebel military officers and men, the direction is clear. Subject to the usual due process, the state is expected to try them expeditiously and mete out punishment.

This is part of the defense mechanism of the state.

Rising to overthrow the government is no joke, yet some senators refuse to see the point. They dig into their bag of political tricks not to bolster the defense of the beleaguered state but to obstruct the defensive justice process.

You watch TV, listen to the radio and read the papers and you’ll know the senators (and some congressmen) we are referring to.

* * *

HONASAN CASE: But while the case of the rebel soldiers is clear even for the most dense members of the Senate, the case of Sen. Gregorio Honasan is different.

Honasan has not been caught in the act nor has evidence been offered to link him to the failed coup. It is therefore reasonable, or even proper, for his colleagues in the Senate to sympathize with him or rise to his defense.

But while they defend one of themselves, senators whose minds have not been totally drugged by partisan politics may want to note this distinction and take a different stand as regards the rebel soldiers.

The catch-all line of “in aid of legislation” is not enough to justify the senators’ demanding that the officers and men involved in the Oakwood adventure be brought before them right away for another of those congressional inquiries.

* * *

CUSTODIANS HARASSED: Some Cabinet officials and military top brass who cannot accommodate demands for them to produce the Oakwood group for another legislative circus are being pictured as violating the soldiers’ human rights and defying legislative summons.

The squeeze being applied on these custodians of the rebel soldiers — including Secretaries Angelo Reyes and Joey Lina, Security Adviser Roilo Golez, and Gen. Narciso Abaya, AFP chief of staff — is not fair.

They have a difficult job to do and the senators’ undue interference in their delicate mission is not helping the case of the state any.

What are senators so agitated about? Cannot they wait till the authorities are done with their investigation of the coup participants before they take their turn to interrogate the rebels and gain their share of publicity?

We all know how slow the legislative mill grinds. It has been 15 years, for instance, since Congress has been mandated by the Constitution to pass laws banning private armies and political dynasties, but these have not been passed.

Yet, in the rebel soldiers’ case that is already being handled by the proper authorities, our senators are suddenly in a great hurry. Are they trying to catch a deadline or a headline?

* * *

TOSS IT TO COURT: If the senators insist on this unreasonable demand, we have a suggestion for Malacanang to rescue the harassed Cabinet members and military top brass.

Using all the powers and influence that President Arroyo can muster, she should be able to cause the speedy investigation of the charges against all known coup participants (such as the Oakwood contingent) for filing in court.

As soon as the court takes cognizance of the case(s), Messrs Abaya, Reyes, Lina and Golez can fend off demands to present the accused before some congressional bodies.

They can beg off with the argument that the accused are already under the jurisdiction of the court. Executive officials will then have no more control over their persons nor be able to deliver them to Congress.

The side issue of separation of powers between Congress and the Judiciary will then make it even more difficult to move the prisoners around.

* * *

WHICH COURT?: The question has arisen about which should take over the soldiers’ cases in the first instance — is it a court martial or a regular civil court?

We’re not a lawyer, but we think this point can be argued either way. A strong president (and President Arroyo has just demonstrated that she is one) will be the fulcrum on which the question will be decided.

If President Arroyo insists on trying rebels, with or without uniform, before regular courts of justice, chances are she will have her way.

The state has a primordial right to defend itself. And the President, who is the Chief Executive and the Commander-in-Chief, is duty-bound to explore all constitutional means to lead the defense of the state.

As has been shown throughout history, a living Constitution can be made to respond creatively to emergencies, especially serious threats to the state, if those manning the levers of power are so minded.

* * *

JURISDICTION: On this issue of jurisdiction or precedence, we think President Arroyo can take the gamble and win.

The Articles of War, under which erring soldiers are normally tried in courts martial, apply to a variety of breaches of conduct and discipline pertaining mainly to the military organization and its operation.

When soldiers rise in rebellion against the state, their uniform is only incidental although aggravating. When a cabal of civilians and soldiers stages a coup and fails, it would be absurd and dangerous to have the civilians tried in a regular court while the soldiers are brought before a military court.

* * *

CONSOLIDATE CASES: The different handling could create a confusing situation where the appreciation of the facts and the meting out of penalties would differ between the two different courts. One solution is to consolidate the cases before one court.

Since it would be absurd to try the civilians before a court martial, but justifiable to try an erring solider before a civil court, the civil court will have to take precedence in consolidating the cases.

We suggest then that the investigators pin down at least one civilian defendant and move to try him and the soldiers before the same civil court. And they have to do this fast to cut off congressional meddling.