MALAYBALAY CITY (MindaNews / 1 March) — There’s a reason why the provision that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws” is in Section 1 of the Bill of Rights in the 1987 Constitution.

There’s a reason, too, why “life” precedes “liberty” and “property” in the formulation of this provision.

The inclusion of these three elements is inspired by the Lockean theory of social contract that these are inherent rights in modern democratic societies. Hence, the Constitution puts a limit to State power by providing that these may only be forfeited under certain circumstances allowed by law.

In the context of them being [the] essential elements of individual happiness, life, liberty, and property can only be treated as interrelated parts of a whole.

Life, however, is placed on top of the other two. The rationale is simple: how can liberty and property be enjoyed if people are denied their right to life through means that are anything but lawful? Life serves as an indispensable element so people may enjoy the rights to liberty and property.

A couple of days ago, Senator Bong Go spoke as a co-sponsor of a proposed Senate resolution urging International Criminal Court warrants against Filipinos to go through Philippine courts first. Apparently, the resolution was in reaction to the ICC document naming him, fellow Senator Bato dela Rosa, and other officials of the Duterte administration as “co-perpetrators” in the case versus the former President.

What many may have not noticed is that Go omitted “life” and “property” — but more notably, “life” — when he said: “…The very core of this resolution is a powerful but simple principle: No Filipino should be deprived of liberty without due process of law. This is not merely a legal or procedural technicality but a constitutional guarantee enshrined in our fundamental law.”

It was design, not dementia, that led to the omission. Striking out “life” was a matter of convenience. Invoking Section 1 in its entirety would have put him in an awkward position. Mentioning “life” would betray his hypocrisy as a Duterte loyalist who has always defended his master’s “war on drugs” that left thousands killed without the benefit of due process.

It was not just a self-serving statement but one that glossed over the reason why he and others now face the prospect of joining Duterte in The Hague.

Sometimes it’s the words left unsaid that carry more weight.

(MindaViews is the opinion section of MindaNews. H. Marcos C. Mordeno can be reached at boymords@mindanews.com.)