We have all heard the famous quote by British Lord Acton that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” There is a variation on that that has been attributed variously to the late musician John Lennon to former US Secretary of the Navy John Lehman. “Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat [or cool]”.
While none of us wants to be the object of oppression, deep down we all probably would like the chance to wield that “absolute power” and have everyone do what we say.
In a civilized society, power tends to come from position rather than brute force as in days past. Of course, power also radiates from wealth in that you can “buy” or at least “rent” the power to tell other people what to do. That also describes the employer/employee relationship. Your “boss” may demand that you wear shoes to work.
There are instances when another person’s power over us is because of the position that they hold and the authority of that position. The security guard at the shopping mall entrance has the power to inspect our bags if we wish to enter. The schoolteacher has the power to tell the students to not speak during class.
However, that power and authority is given to the position and not to the person. The security guard does not have the right to inspect our bag when he or she is off-duty.
We might address someone as “doctor” even when that person is outside the medical environment as a courtesy. But the title does not give the “doctor” the authority to start examining us by right of a license to practice medicine. Further, we usually do not call someone “Bank Manager Cruz” or “Auto Mechanic Santos” except within the narrow confines of when they are actually performing that duty.
Yet, it is interesting that an elected official seems to carry the title of “senator,” “congressman” or “mayor” long after they no longer hold that position. Further, the line between the “person” and the “position” becomes blurred.
In 2014 there was controversy over what became to be called “Hacienda Binay” and the involvement of businessman Antonio Tiu. Specifically, there was speculation that Tiu acted as a “dummy” of Vice President Jejomar Binay. This claim was made by Sen. Antonio F. Trillanes IV.
Tiu filed a civil case for defamation against Trillanes based on statements the senator gave to the media when he called Tiu “an ideal dummy” for Binay. In his defense against the defamation suit, the senator claimed that his statements were protected from suit under the concept of “parliamentary immunity” under Article VI, Section 2, of the 1987 Constitution.
In a decision handed down in March, the Supreme Court did find that the media statements “were not covered by the parliamentary speech or debate privilege.”
Further, the Constitution’s protection of lawmakers’ privilege of speech and debate “did not turn our senators and congressmen into ‘super citizens,’ whose spoken words or actions are rendered absolutely impervious to prosecution or civil action.” The purpose was “not to protect them against prosecutions for their benefit, but to enable them, as people’s representatives, to perform the functions of their office.”
This ruling is an important affirmation that there is a clear and definable line between the “position” of public office and “person” who holds that position. There cannot be a separate definition of free speech—or any law—for ordinary citizens and elected officials.