Literally, it means to obey but not to comply. Quickly, it sounds like a contradiction, viz: how can you obey if you don’t comply? Put another way, isn’t to comply to obey? When my former boss sent me this message — “Please viber examples of ‘obedezco pero no cumplo’ asap” --- I submitted some theoretical examples that, on reflection, may have fallen short of compliance since they were largely generic.

Consider five examples given by AI and Plain View’s corresponding annotation of generic cases in point, viz:

First, “ignoring or delaying the implementation of unpopular or impractical laws.” This is characterized by delaying enforcement, issuing contradictory instructions, or failing to allocate the necessary resources for its execution. Accordingly, this then presents the semblance of compliance with the central authority while at the same time protecting local interests or avoiding potential disruption.

Do fully-funded infrastructure projects yet unfinished not fall within this category? Certainly, an unfinished road project would cause delay or, logically deducible, fail to allocate the resources intended for its completion. Maybe to otherwise finish the project would run counter to local interests, hence the disruption.

Second, “selective enforcement of regulations.” Here, public officials choose to enforce certain regulations while ignoring others, thereby choosing which laws to obey based on personal preferences, political considerations, or a desire to maintain the social order. So, what could be a more fitting example that we could give?

Most local government units have a wide-range of “no parking” ordinances. While there might be a central authority in charge of overall traffic management and rules, such as the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, some LGUs choose to enforce them in the exercise of their local autonomy or authority in certain instances in order to preserve the status quo.

Third, “favoritism and patronage.” This means favoring certain individuals or groups while appearing to follow the rules. This includes granting exemptions or privileges to persons with connections even if this is counterintuitive to the spirit of the law.

The most likely easy example to give here would be the wanton appointment of individuals as executive assistants or consultants within apparently permissible bounds. However, the appointing authority grants such positions on the strength of the “confidential nature” of the job to relatives or friends or neighbors, thereby violating the principle of meritocracy in the government service.

Fourth, “subverting the intent of the law through bureaucratic procedures.” This involves complex bureaucratic procedures, excessive paperwork, or lengthy delays to frustrate the implementation of a law or policy such that while creating an appearance of compliance, they effectively block the intended outcome.

Consider the case of school owners who believe they should be exempted from paying the business license or tax to the LGU that has territorial jurisdiction and authority over them. Public officials who believe otherwise, that no school owner is exempted from the business tax to secure a mayor’s permit, may require them to submit a certification from the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Can a school owner secure a BIR exemption that will not move away from the intended outcome?

Last, “maintaining the status quo.” Used to preserving existing power structures and social hierarchies, public officials might resist changes that threaten their authority or the interests of their allies even as these changes were mandated from above or higher authorities.

Let’s draw an oblique situation in the case of the President ordering “courtesy resignations” en masse from his Cabinet secretaries and heads of crucial agencies. In principle, incumbents could have resisted this order as it threatens their authority or the interests of their own circle of stakeholders. The good thing is that it was just a publicity stunt as hardly any officials were really booted out.

Was it a semblance of strength rather than weakness, pray tell?