BARELY two months have passed since the elections and already someone has dared forge the President’s signature. That is bad news. Malacañang immediately announced that the authorities are now investigating the source of the bogus document appointing a new Bureau of Immigration commissioner. Said document bears the false signature of the Chief Executive. The press secretary cited the possible violation of Article 161 of the Revised Penal Code.

What is Article 161 of the Penal Code? (The Revised Penal Code defines criminal acts and the many years one is supposed to spend time in jail for crimes committed.) The crime is not falsification of a public document, which is punishable by a different provision of the code. The crime is so odious that it is defined and penalized as a separate article and is called the “crime of forging the signature of the Chief Executive.”

It is punishable by reclusion temporal, a penalty of imprisonment with a duration of 12 years and one day minimum up to a maximum of 20 years. Corollary to the crime of forging the President’s signature is the use of the forged signature, which is defined in the next provision of the Penal Code. The elements of the crime consist of using the forged signature and knowing that the signature is a forgery. The offender must not be the forger himself, otherwise his crime would fall under Article 161.

The crime of using the forged signature of the Chief Executive also carries a hefty penalty in our statute books which is prision mayor. In layman’s terms, its duration is six years and one day to 12 years imprisonment. It is a crime against public interest which means that it endangers us all. The commission of the crime is without precedent in the Philippines, so I cannot cite jurisprudence (i.e., a Supreme Court decision) to use as an example.

Official acts of the President are always put in writing. It is how he gets things done. The presidential signature directs the movement of government. It is for this reason that we should take acts that could undermine or frustrate the presidential will seriously.

If the bogus appointment of the Bureau of Immigration commissioner carrying the President’s fake signature was transmitted through the use of a computer, the person responsible may, if the evidence warrants, also be held liable for the violation of Republic Act 10175, also known as the “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012,” which punishes computer-related forgery. The act of knowingly using computer data in committing computerrelated forgery for the purpose of perpetuating a fraudulent or dishonest design is also punished by the cybercrime law.

The first lady, a graduate of the Ateneo de Manila College of Law, has kept mum on the matter. She is a member of the extraordinary league of men and women of the fabled Ateneo Law School Class of 1985 whose names are inscribed in steel on stone on a monument located at Robinsons Padre Faura. Unbeknownst to most, the first lady is a seasoned litigator and an expert in criminal law. She has deep knowledge of the subject and taught it for years in several well-known and established universities. Teaching criminal law is not a walk in the park. Neither is it for the faint-hearted. Instructing students on the meaning of the articles of the Revised Penal Code with their manifold interpretations, jurisprudence and innumerable special laws which may directly affect the existing provisions of the penal code is quite daunting. It calls for unremitting, serious and dedicated study. I also trained students on the subject and still bear the scars of my last engagement.

Going back to that forged signature, why must we harshly punish the person who forged the signature of the President? It is because a President’s signature is so powerful it could deploy armies, approve or veto a law, sign treaties with other States which could lead to aggression or non-aggression, commute sentences, appoint persons with good or foul intentions to government offices. The President’s signature, in other words, symbolizes the people’s will.

When one falsifies the signature of an ordinary official, only third persons are harmed, but if one falsifies the signature of a president, the entire State is harmed. Malicious or wrongful intent is necessary in the crime of falsification of a public or official document. If one falsifies the signature of the chief executive, even in jest, the malice or ill-will of the act is all-pervading because faith is lost in the ability of the president to protect us.

In fine, the President’s signature, whether in squiggles, whorls, chicken scratches, or written in John Hancock’s elegant style, should never be imitated by a forger’s hand, nor maliciously posted in the stolen light of pixelated images in cyberspace. It was said that the President immediately rescinded the fake appointment. Now heads will roll.