[Just Saying] SONA, Congress, accountability, and free speech

The insensitivity of spending a large amount of money on the event is highlighted in light of the country's issues with homelessness, unemployment, and debt

The State of the Nation Address is a constitutional directive. The President makes his report to the people. In that gathering done in the halls of the House of Representatives, we will see the presence of legislators and perhaps other public officials – who are, incidentally, commanded by the Constitution to live modest lives.

 It is a serious occasion to know if the President, through his speech, has done or omitted to do something for the nation, whether he is lying or telling the truth, has achievable plans or just mouthing empty platitudes, and is truly sensitive or not to the pulse of the nation.    

In the SONA, we scrutinize the President’s performance. We do not celebrate him. The SONA is not his fiesta nor his yearly party with legislators, foreign dignitaries, and Supreme Court justices.

And so many wonder why P20 million more or less, was reported as expenses for the event. And when it was revealed that it will include expenses for food, flowers, invitations, giveaways, rent for audio visual equipment, coordination of agencies, and others, they further wonder how it could reach that staggering amount.

Surely, invitations can just be given through e-mails, a lavish dinner skipped, decorative flowers dispensed with, giveaways not given, coordination among agencies undertaken by repeated memos through digital transmissions without incurring too must cost?

And seriously, are we also to understand that the House of Representatives, with its huge budget, has no audio-visual apparatus such that it must rent one? If true, that is sheer incompetence.

The insensitivity of this event is made more pronounced by reports that the Philippines has about 4.5 million homeless people with 250,000 of them children. The country has about 2 million unemployed and, as of the end of February 2024, about P15.8 trillion in debt. Some of our soldiers and sailors have been risking their lives in asserting our sovereignty in the West Philippine Sea with meager resources compared to China’s.  

More importantly, prices of important goods are rising. From the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) data, galunggong, for example, rose from P189.06 per kilo in May 2024 to P195.52 in June 2024. This may be insignificant to rich politicians but not to millions of our people.

Significantly, display of thoughtless extravagance amid a period “of acute public want” can be stopped by the courts (Article 25, Civil Code). Unfortunately, the case can only be initiated by a government or private charitable institution. Surely, the Philippine Charitable Sweepstakes Office will not do the filing. It will also be too much for a private charitable institution to further deplete its limited funds for such a case. The only thing remaining is a high sense of delicadeza on the part of government.

And then it was reported that House Secretary General Reginald Velasco said, “This is a formal event. We will be very strict in the expression of protest in a SONA outfit. They’ll be requested to change because it is the SONA. It is not a day of protest.” In short, no outfit manifesting protest will be allowed during the SONA.

That directive is unconstitutional. Non-violent protest is part of our democracy, doable anytime, anywhere and any place, provided it is peaceful. To wear a black arm band or outfit signifying protest is within the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. It can be legitimately curtailed if there is a clear and present danger imperiling the government’s existence. Surely, that will not happen during the SONA.

Remember: the people own the Batasan building, public money will be spent, and the event is vested with public interest. The prohibition exhibits ignorance of our fundamental liberties enshrined in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

Think of all the opposition legislators wearing a protest outfit peacefully waiting for the President’s speech, one can imagine the distasteful scene of the congressional sergeant-at-arms and his men – in full view of foreign diplomats, the Supreme Court justices and the televiewers – escorting all of them outside the Batasan building, leaving only the President’s allies giving intermittent applause and standing ovations. It might be, after all, President Marcos Jr. enjoying himself preaching to the choir.  

It will be a revolting and shameful sight for an administration that preens itself of respecting diversity in our society.

A rule of decorum cannot defeat the exercise of constitutional rights. In law, any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly, obstructs or, in any manner, impedes the freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievance shall be liable for damages (Article 32, Civil Code). Presence of malice or bad faith is not necessary. (Lim vs. Ponce De Leon G.R. No. L-22554 August 29, 1975) – Rappler.com

Mel Sta. Maria is former dean of the Far Eastern University Institute of Law. He teaches law at FEU, the Ateneo School of Law, the University of Sto. Tomas, Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, University of Makati, and Manuel L. Quezon University. He also hosts shows on both radio and YouTube, and has authored several books on law, politics, and current events.