Coup d'etat is a crime against public order; withdrawal of support is not.
Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code defines coup d'etat as a "swift attack accompanied by violence, etc., directed against duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, etc."
On the other hand, the Revised Penal Code does not say anything about withdrawal of support. It is not, therefore, a crime. It does not even have the characteristic of a "swift attack", unlike a coup d'etat.
In two landmark cases, the Supreme Court spoke about withdrawal of support repeatedly. But it never said a word on whether or not it is wrong, felonious, improper, or unconstitutional. (Pages 8, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the Supreme Court's 68 paged Decision in the cases of "Joseph E. Estrada vs. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, G.R. No. 146738" and "Joseph E. Estrada vs. Aniano Desierto, et. al. G.R. No. 146710-15")
Thus in page 8 of said Decision the Supreme Court, citing page 4 of the Philippine Star dated January 30, 2001, said:
"In the presence of former Presidents Aquino and Ramos and hundreds of thousands of cheering demonstrators, General Reyes declared that "on behalf of your Armed Forces, the 130,000 strong members of the Armed Forces, we wish to announce that we are withdrawing our support to this government" (Underscoring mine).
In the same page, the Supreme Court, citing page A-16 of the Philippine Daily Inquirer dated February 4, 2001, said:
"A little later, PNP Chief, Director General Panfilo Lacson and the major service commanders gave a similar "stunning announcement."
In his separate concurring opinion, Justice Jose C. Vitug, said:
"The basic structures, the principles, the directions, the interest and the spirit of the 1987 Constitution have been saved and preserved." (Page 14, concurring opinion)
But contrary to what Justice Vitug said, the structures that were the AFP and the PNP and the direction that the President was their Commander in Chief, were disregarded by Generals Angelo Reyes and Panfilo Lacson when they withdrew support from the President of the Philippines. Section II, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution clearly directs that the "President shall be Commander in Chief of all Armed Forces of the Philippines xx" Justice Vitug and the rest of his associates saw no wrong nor evil nor unconstitutionality in what they did. Perforce, the inevitable conclusion is that withdrawal of support is perfectly alright.
Justice Vitug had no word of advise whatsoever for the AFP and PNP. He only had benign tolerance for them. Instead, he barked up the youth. Thus in his "Reminder of an elder to the youth" in page 16 of his concurring opinion he said inter alias:
"Conventional wisdom dictates the indispensable need for great sobriety and extreme circumspection on our part. In this kind of arena, let us be assured that we are not overcome by senseless adventurism and opportunism.”
IN VIEW of all of the foregoing, my dear Mistahs and cavaliers of the AFP and PNP, do not do what the law clearly says is a crime; WITHDRAW SUPPORT IF YOU HAVE TO! It is perfectly legal. The Protector of the People clause of the 1987 Constitution is your constitutional basis. The abovenamed Decision of the Supreme Court is your jurisprudential basis.
With all due respect, let me remind you however that you can only be "Protector of the People", not "Governor".
The Filipino people and the world's community of nations will not support a military autocracy. You may protect the people but you must not govern them. Do not lose sight of the time honored principle of civilian supremacy over the military at all times. Vice Chief of Staff Fidel V. Ramos heeded this in 1968; Chief of Staff Angelo Reyes and PNP director General Panfilo Lacson did the same in 2001.
The time to act is now! To vacillate is to collaborate; to defer is to surrender.
