S1L58 – Breaking down the Myth of Super-Untouchable Regulators
Why is it not possible to sue the State?
This is a question I have often been asked by my students, both in Political Science in the undergraduate program and in the College of Law.
The short answer is because of the “Social Contract Theory”—which, in itself, would be a pain to explain. It revolves around the dictum that “There can be no right against the authority that enacted the law that gave you the right.”
That doesn’t mean the State can absolutely do no wrong. It comes with the reservation that when MEN merely acting under the authority of the State abuse that authority–which man is prone to do–the People can override that authority, because in the ultimate analysis of the Social Contract that authority was only BORROWED from Them.
So whenever I read comments of trolls who say that it is wrong to fight government regulators (for example, that totally useless National Electrification Administration), no matter if they are right or wrong, I realize the extent of ignorance about the subject.
It needs to be addressed in the interest of advancing legal education, especially since these trolls say everybody other than themselves do not understand the law.
Kung sino pa yung bobo, siya pa yung mayabang.
First of all, the rule on non-suability of the State is not absolute. The State CAN be sued with its consent, which it may give knowingly, as when it enters into a contract with a citizen (individual or collective) or statutorily, as when its own charter says it can sue and be sued in its own name.
All administrative agencies have original charters (including NEA) and those charters give them juridical personality, or the fitness to become the subject of legal relations—and therefore, can be subject of litigation. In other words, the state being “non-suable” is more the exception than the rule.
So trolls who say people who “fight the authority of NEA” or this regulatory body and that, are not only wrong but are dangerously ignorant.
There used to be, of course, a world-class regime where to “fight the State” was treason of the highest order and was routinely meted severe penalties, like being banished to prolonged prison sentences in the labor camps of the Siberian gulags. That regime was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) which no longer exists. It disintegrated with the crash of the Berlin Wall in November 1989.
Fighting the State, of course, does not only consist in going to court against it. Some trolls claim that failing to pay homage to these regulatory bodies, or displaying “ingratitude” despite receiving “subsidies, loans, and other financial aid” from these regulatory bodies also constitute “fighting the State.”
Just to disabuse everyone right from the outset about this “they” versus “state regulators” myth, it needs to be pointed out that the STATE as a political concept has four elements: TERRITORY, PEOPLE, GOVERNMENT and SOVEREIGNTY.
You see, NEA is not even an element–but PEOPLE are!
More importantly, you can see that SOVEREIGNTY is an element all by its own—it is NOT integral to GOVERNMENT.
Sometimes, my students especially the really persnickety ones, challenge me to RANK the elements in the order of their importance. I say I can’t do it, but what I can do is CATEGORIZE them into two: INHERENT and CONSTRUCTIVE.
Territory, People and Sovereignty are all INHERENT elements, take any one of them away and you do NOT have a state. Government is a CONSTRUCTIVE element–it was merely invented by the People. Take away government and the STATE will do fine. It will have difficulties centralizing law and enforcement but it will manage to get by.
I will not force you to believe the following, if you’re not a biblical Christian—but government came into existence as a result of the Israelites’ rebellion against the perfect guidance of God. I’m just paraphrasing here but essentially the Israelites told God, “You are such a killjoy, there’s just no fun in life with You around! We demand that you turn over the reigns of control over our lives to our hands! Anoint a king over us!”
God said, “Are you sure? I mean, a king would enslave you, take away your wealth, take away your liberty, put a yoke on your neck, send you to war, etc. etc.”
The Israelites said, “Naah, we’ll do fine! Just leave us alone.”
God said, “Okay then, I anoint Saul your new king. And I’ll leave you a constitution, be sure to read it!”
TO THIS DAY, human society still has not elected a perfect King. And to this day they still don’t read their Constitution!
But which ranks higher, NEA or the People? The best proof of the correct hierarchical order is this: we can always ABOLISH NEA–in fact, developments are proceeding towards that direction–but you can never abolish the People.
NEA does not realize this because it does not acknowledge that unlike the indestructible eternal Spirit of the People, NEA has clay feet.
This is also why to this day, you still have ignorant trolls.
About the Author
The author is a writer and lawyer based in Baguio City, Philippines. Former editor of the Gold Ore and Baguio City Digest, professor of journalism, political science and law at Baguio Colleges Foundation (BCF). He is a photographer and video documentarist. He has a YouTube channel called “Parables and Reason”
About Images: Some of the images used in the articles are from the posts in Atty. Joel Rodriguez Dizon’s Facebook account, and/or Facebook groups and pages he manages or/and member of.