To hold or not to hold

When President Obama decided to release what is touted as the Torture Memos, he was faced with a dilemma: to hold or not to hold those who authorized the memos accountable.

There are those who argue that President Obama should, because it's an affront to the basic law of the land, the Constitution. On the other hand, there are those who argue that President Obama should not, because it just distracts the administration from dealing with more pressing matters, chief of which the battered economy.

On the January 11th edition of ABC’s “This Week, when asked whether he will "...appoint a special prosecutor...to independently investigate the greatest crimes of the Bush administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping," the then President-elect Obama didn't give a black or white answer.

"We’re still evaluating how we’re going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth," he said. "And obviously we’re going to be looking at past practices and I don’t believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. And part of my job is to make sure that for example at the CIA, you’ve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don’t want them to suddenly feel like they’ve got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering [up]."

But Paul Krugman, the Nobel Laureate slash economist slash blogger, begged to differ.

"I’m sorry," Krugman wrote, "but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power."

Why I'm bringing this up?

Because now that we are about to choose, among others, our next president (sana walang umaswang sa election), one question that we might find ourselves asking is, "Will the next president hold the past administration accountable for its many abuses?"

It's too early to say if someone will, but based on the presidentiables' earlier remarks, it seems that nobody won't.

Take Defense Sec. Gilbert Teodoro, who is poised to be the Lakas-Kampi-CMD's standard bearer.

Sec. Teodoro said, if ever he will become president of this country, prosecuting Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would not be a priority of his administration.

“Involvement in prosecuting a former president definitely is not a priority," Teodoro said. "I am saying this now, point blank, it will not be a priority of my administration."

"The more important thing," according to Teodoro, "is we have to move forward. We cannot use the issue of alleged corruption as a convenient political tool."

What can I say?

Like Krugman, I’m sorry but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Arroyo years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Teodoro’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.

A president takes an oath that he will “…faithfully abide and conscientiously fulfill [his] duties as President of the Philippines, preserve, and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man and consecrate [himself] to the service of the Nation…”

Granting that Teodoro will win as President of the Philippines and yet he will not hold an inquest into the abuses of the past administration, is he not abdicating his sworn duties?

To use Krugman's words, "to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable."

I agree that there are many pressing matters the next president will confront, more pressing than prosecuting an ex-president(?). But as president of a democratic country, he cannot simply leave his duty to "preserve, and defend its Constitution, execute its laws," etc. behind.

Whether he likes it or not, he must ensure that the rule of law prevails at all times. For the rule of law is not invoked only when it's convenient.