The Citizen On Mars

Former Defense Secretary Fortunato Abat should have known better that establishing “a government within a government” is never child’s play or a light matter. Under the law, that kind of move would almost always land you a criminal charge for inciting to sedition at the least, and rebellion or coup de etat at the most—if the said maneuver should prove to be attended by any form of armed uprising. Yesterday, Abat was “invited” by police authorities for questioning and PNP spokesperson Chief Supt. Leopoldo Bataoil justified the warrantless arrest as the permissible “citizen arrest” that is allowed by our remedial laws in instances where any civilian could effect an arrest without the benefit of a warrant (whenever such person had witnessed a crime that has just been committed or is about to be committed.) Under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, any person or peace officer could make warrantless arrest whenever (a) in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense or (b) when an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. Warrantless arrest can also be allowed in instances (c) where the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. What transpired yesterday was an arrest made by police officers and thus, it could not be strictly termed as a “citizen arrest” but a permissible warrantless arrest as provided for by Rule 113.

After just hours of detention, the police authorities finally charged Abat and his co-horts with the criminal offense of inciting to sedition. The charge against Abat could have been sedition itself where the events showed that he was directly involved in the establishment of the “government within a government”, which to me is already a tulmultous event. But the provision of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines is very specific in classifying speeches, proclamations and writings to be merely to incite others to rise publicly and tulmultously, Article 139 of the Penal Code defines the crime of sedition in the following manner:

The crime of sedition is committed by persons who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to attain by force, intimidation, or by other means outside of legal methods, any of the following objects:

1. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election; 2. To prevent the National Government, or any provincial or municipal government or any public officer thereof from freely exercising its or his functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative order; 3. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or employee; 4. To commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private persons or any social class; and 5. To despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the National Government (or the Government of the United States), of all its property or any part thereof.

Ultimately, despite the fact that Abat’s conduct gravely approximate on what we call “a highly seditious act or conduct”, there remains the weighing of scale that our courts often undertake in order that they have proper determination if a crime has really been committed or not. In this case, there lies the question of whether or not Abat and his co-horts were really serious about taking over the government or whether or not they really have that sufficient amount of malice as to be so antagonistic towards the government that he and the others could now be seen as criminals through and through. For there is still that possibility that they may just be coying around or just making fools out of themselves before the public eyes. Are we about to believe that a small band of washed-up former officials that have seen better days could really have that right amount of capacity (as well as capability) to mount a government takeover. In my mind, they could not even takeover a barangay police station even if they multiply themselves by three. Now, if there is that right amount of evidence that Abat and his co-horts were in cahoots with some rebellious military men, especially those who were rumoured to be at the point mounting a coup de etat over the weekend, then that would be another story altogether.

It amazes me now how cartoonish were Abat and his men when they proclaimed “a transitional government” (like Tom in that cat and mouse cartoon show or Wily Coyote) despite the fact that they had some legal persons around and amongst them. So foolish of them not to be forewarned about the “seditiousness” of such move, which to me is like an open invitation to mortal danger. Maybe they want to become the ultimate heroes now that they have this one last chance at glory. It couldn’t be farfetched—for I understand that some of us really dreams big of becoming heroes by all means and at all cost—-even if mortal danger approaches.