OBJECTIVE EFFECT OF LEGITIMIZING WITHDRAWAL OF SUPPORT There is one undeniable and objective consequence of the Edsa 2 Supreme Court decisions which has nothing to do with Erap's guilt or innocence as such, but with a new standard of behavior on the part of the Philippine Miitary that has been established by the Davide Supreme Court when it found the events of Edsa 2 -- "CONSTITUTIONAL THROUGHOUT"-- with no HIATUS whatsoever in the operation of the Constitution, on the part of anybody (including themselves of course.) A retrospective and Chronology of Events on the Angelo Reyes Mutiny is in When Last the Military Withdrew Support.
THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS By legitimizing the END RESULT of Edsa 2, the Davide Supreme Court also blessed the ILLEGAL MEANS employed -- including Angelo Reyes' Military Mutiny, still perniciously referred to in respectable society as "a withdrawal of support" when he himself had called it a Mutiny. Indeed, it was only because the Armed Forces Chief of Staff Angelo T. Reyes had declared and executed a mutiny against President Joseph Estrada on 19 January 2001, that Davide could even have considered doing what he did. A most important vestige of that highly immoral legitimization of plain and simple Mutiny may be found in the term "WITHDRAWAL OF SUPPORT" which, in this context, reveals a Supreme Court assiduously creating a category of acceptable mutiny. It is Davide's Chicken, which wrongly declared the Presidency vacant at noon on that bright Saturday morning, which has come home to roost in the Philippine Military as a logical brain twister that subverts the Articles of War, idiotizes the Chain of Command by confounding office-holders with positions of public trust, and indeed declares EVIL to be GOOD, as a recent PDI editorial Orwellianized.
FROM THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH AND RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM There is a particularly reprehensible but inherently cynical line of reasoning that serves to rationalize and justify the Supreme Court's benediction of Angelo Reyes' Mutiny: Whether or not a military action abetting or causing a Regime Change is to be considered unconstitutional or not depends on whether the action SUCCEEDS at toppling the current regime or not.(I think this is the height, and breadth and depth of intellectual dishonesty. It is the purest, deepest casuisty in current usage, and I wish I were more clever and expressive that I could find the words to destroy this mental abomination. It is something so deeply and obviously wrong whose fallaciousness is viciously demonstrated every time just such a Regime Change is threatened. Only victors can say it with relish, but even those defeated are given hope of undertaking their own LEGITIMATE MUTINY. The Supreme sank to a fresh nadir in enshrining this self-evident piece of casuistry in its annals.
TIME BOMB OF LEGAL AND MORAL AMBIGUITY FOR THE MILITARY The Supreme Court thus left the Philippine Military with a ticking time bomb of legal and moral ambiguity. For in legitimizing Mutiny by Angelo Reyes to achieve a SUCCESSFUL Regime Change in 2001, the Supreme Court has really made it morally inconsistent and conceptually bizarre to prosecute people like General Danilo Lim and Colonel Ariel Querubin for failing to abet a Regime Change by imitating said Angelo Reyes. To be MORALLY CONSISTENT, any prosecution of a FAILED MUTINY-CUM-COUP D'ETAT ought to be preceded by a thorough investigation and prosecution of Angelo Reyes' Mutiny and Coup D'etat. Anything less, such as what the High Court, the Military and the government are all blundering about doing, is inexorably headed for the all-reducing dramatic pathos of successive absurdities that is already unfolding before our eyes.
DANGEROUS LEGITIMIZATION OF RADICAL JUDICIAL ACTIVISM There is a second, even more lethal consequence of the Davide Court's decisions with respect to Edsa 2. But that deserves its own future commentary.