--------------
Nonoy is writing an essay, "Rule of law, lawlessness of
the State, and State of the nation". Some relevant quotes: "The rules
must apply to those who lay them down and those who apply and that nobody has
the power to grant exceptions.” – Friedrich Hayek "
July 28, 2009 at 11:21am
Comments
Selwyn Clyde M.
Alojipan Here's my contribution to your body of knowledge: "With great
freedom, comes great irresponsibility."
July 28, 2009 at 11:45am
Nonoy Oplas
Right! Therefore we should not allow the State to have more freedom so that it
will have less irresponsibility.
July 28, 2009 at 11:47am
Selwyn Clyde M.
Alojipan Level of responsibility and accountability should match the level
of authority practiced by a leader of the State. It should be easy for a person
of high authority to be chastised, his freedom of action curtailed, and/or
removed from power if he violates the rule of law. Unfortunately, our
Constitution allows any President to have almost complete freedom of action
during the entire term of office. Use of power quickly expands to the limits
set by the legal restraints and there are few Constitutional restraints set on
a President who wants to use all the powers at his/her disposal. People should
examine if they want to elect another President who can do as he or she wants
under our current Constitution unless pulled down by another People Power
revolt.
That's why I now prefer a Parliamentary form of
government so that each citizen just elects a person in their district who
should be qualified to become Prime Minister but who must also be acceptable to
his fellow MPs.
July 28, 2009 at 12:48pm
Bruce Hall To
make it easier to overthrow the president, we don't have to change the entire
system. All we need to do is making removing the president easier. Switching to
a parliamentary system is overkill. It is more change that we need to achieve
the stated goal.
The biggest problem that I see is the centralization of
power. I don't see how increasing the centralization by merging the legislature
and executive would help.
Governments need to be more accountable to the people. We
can get that by making governance more local. That's why small countries tend
to be the best run -- Singapore, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden. The
Iloilo government should be responsible for Iloilo--for road, water,
electricity, schools, police, trash, fire, etc. Then the voters will choose
those candidates for local office that will really do the work. Voters are more
familiar with local officials than national. Imperial Manila is so far away and
out of touch--and arrogant--that it's an abstraction.
July 29, 2009 at 11:21am
Bruce Hall To
uphold the rule of law we need competing power bases fighting against each
other, holding each other accountable. We don't need all government power
concentrated in one single body, called Parliament or Glorious Leader or
whatever. The House should fight against and hold the Senate accountable, and
vice versa. President v. Congress. National v. Provincial. Provincial v. Local.
Local v. barangay. Voters v. all government. Just as the defense holds the
prosecution accountable and as Cebu Pacific holds Philippine Airlines
accountable, we need competing bodies and governments to make sure that
everyone is following the law. Monopolies undermine accountability and the rule
of law. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. No to monopolies of
any kind, government or corporate.
July 29, 2009 at 11:29am
Nonoy Oplas
Thanks Bruce. Although I don't think that having various levels of government
constantly checking or fighting each other will result in the supremacy of the
rule of law. National governments will create laws that will weaken the
provincial and the local can't fight back easily.
So we stick to the original premise: the law applies to
everyone, no one is exempted, and no one can grant exemption, to the
application of the law. No stealing means no stealing whether in national or
local govt. or in private houses. No killing means no killing whether one is a
politician or a policeman or a petty robber or a beggar. That's the rule of
law.
July 29, 2009 at 2:02pm
Bruce Hall The
problem becomes how do you enforce the law. After all laws are just words on a
piece of paper. You need real institutions, backed up by force, driven by human
passions and failures, to enforce the law. People Power is one force to hold
govs accountable. Competing governments and institutions are others. Money is
the most important.
If we give existing non-national governments more power,
for instance over taxes, then those governments can enforce the laws against
the national government, including the laws such as a constitution that limit
national government's power. Since we don't want to increase taxes, we should
under a constitution give to the national government very limited taxing powers
and give non-national governments less limited power to tax, doing away with
most of the IRA in the process. The national government uses money--the IRA and
other funds--to control local. What if they never had the money in the first
place? What if VAT went to directly to cities?
July 29, 2009 at 3:09pm
Nonoy Oplas
One important implication of the rule of law is that the number of laws in a
country or society will be as few as possible. Because laws as prohibitions and
restrictions, will also apply to those who administer the law, the enforcers of
the law would rather have few laws to enforce which will also restrict them.
Thus, there will be few traffic rules like "no left turn, no
U-turn,..." because police and govt. cars will also have to obey such
rules. Most traffic problems will have engineering solutions rather than legal
and bureaucratic solutions.
Rule of law states that no one is exempted and no one can
grant exemption from the law, then those various subsidies will drastically be
cut or abolished because those subsidies are favoring certain sectors and
exempting other sectors. Less taxes to be imposed as there are less or zero
subsidies needed. A strict rule of law regime can later lead to a small or
limited government.
July 29, 2009 at 3:24pm
Bruce Hall
Designers of governments should not expect people to follow the law just
because it is the law. Human beings don't work that way. Some will follow a law
out of propriety but not enough. You need real consequences for people who
break the law. That means there always must be some other group with some power
over the powerful. If there is a single source of power, if all the power is
concentrated in one group or person, if there is a monopoly, then there will be
no consequences when that group or individual violates the law. Absolute power
corrupts absolutely.
Elections, if they are frequent, regular and free can be
that check. However if the powerful group also controls the elections, say
through a COMELEC, that check on its power is limited.
Media, popular opinion, other institutions (private,
commercial, governmental) are also checks.
One way to make sure that the Rule of Law does not exist
is to concentrate all power--government, commercial, moral, etc.--into one.
July 29, 2009 at 3:25pm
See also:
Rule of Law 5: Lawless State, Corruption and Coercion, August 01, 2009
Rule of Law 24: Policemen as Violators of Traffic Rules, September 15, 2014
Rule of Law 25: Corruption in Europe, December 21, 2015
Rule of law 26, RIP Sen. Jovito Salonga, March 11, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment