FOR YOUR INFORMATION
Friday, February 24, 2006 – We awoke to the news that CHED had suspended classes on all levels, public and private, for the day. The jubilation most of us felt from the announcement, however, dampened quickly. Why? CHED’s reason for the suspension - President GMA’s declaration of a State of Emergency thru the now infamous Proclamation No. 1017, the gist of which is as follows:
§ Allegedly, certain elements from the opposition, the Left and military adventurists constituting the extreme Right had formed an alliance with the hackneyed objective of overthrowing not only the present administration but of democracy as well.
§ Allegedly, their actions as well as the media’s rash exaggeration of their claims have contributed to the hindrance of the country’s economic growth as well as to the sabotaging of the citizenry’s faith in the government which, taken as a whole, constitute a clear and present danger to the safety of the State and of the people.
§ Thus, pursuant to the pertinent provisions of the 1987 Constitution, GMA declares a State of Emergency (Article XII, section 17), calls out the Armed Forces to take matters concerning peace and order into their hands upon her bidding (Article VII, section 18), all in line with the primary governmental duty of defending and preserving the democratic institutions and the State (Article II, section 4).
In other words, last Friday, February 24, 2006, we awoke to a day of infamy and irony as we commemorated the 20th anniversary of democracy’s victory by its curtailment.
A second look at Proclamation No. 1017, the circumstances surrounding it and the cited provisions of the 1987 Constitution will show the impropriety of the President’s actions.
Thru Proclamation No. 1017, GMA had bestowed unto herself the power to make decrees and orders similar to those Marcos used to legislate to bequeath upon his person unbridled law-making powers. Thus, Proclamation No. 1017 is clearly tainted with utmost capriciousness in addition to being devoid of defined standards or guidelines. Furthermore, it does not delineate the extent of the declared emergency.
Significantly, the President had already declared in a public statement that the situation is in control and that whatever threat existed had already been suppressed and nipped at the bud. If that is the case then there is no real need for promulgating Proclamation No. 1017. In this light, not only is Proclamation No. 1017 capricious but it is also devoid of basis.
A State of Emergency is a governmental declaration that suspends particular functions of government, which may work to alert citizens to change their normal behaviors or order certain agencies to come up with emergency preparedness plans. In the Philippine context, unlike in States which equate it with Martial Law, it is a unique concept under Article XII, section 17 of the present constitution. The provision deals with a situation of an economy-related National Emergency for it confers upon the President under reasonable terms extraordinary economic powers, specifically to “temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest.” It does not give her the license to call out the armed forces to take matters into their hands. The proper platform for such action is the declaration of a State of Rebellion or Invasion.
Finally, Article VII, section 18 (the commander-in-chief provision) gives the president the authority to:
§ call out the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion,
§ suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and
§ place the country or any part thereof under Martial Law.
Such powers are granted only in specified conditions and that is when there exists lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. The mere alleged alliance between the opposition, the Left and the Right to overthrow GMA’s administration cannot be clearly considered as falling under any of the three specific conditions.
In conclusion, though one cannot help but fear the possibility of GMA using Proclamation No. 1017 as a stepping stone for the eventual declaration of a State of Rebellion subsequently followed by the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the declaration of Martial Law, one too must be mindful that our present Constitution is not without adequate safeguards when that possibility is realized. Though it may be argued that the actual calling out of the armed forces is not subject to judicial review since the president is authorized to do so “whenever it is necessary” and that its factual necessity is something for the president to decide (Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, GR No. 141284, 08/15/2000), an action to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the power to impose Martial Law are subject to:
§ a time limit of sixty (60) days;
§ review and possible revocation by Congress; and
§ review of the sufficiency of its factual basis and its possible nullification of the Supreme Court upon the filing of a suit by any citizen in an appropriate proceeding.
Furthermore, Martial Law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be declared depending on the existence of two factual bases:
§ the existence of ACTUAL invasion or rebellion, and
§ the requirements of public safety.
Lastly and most importantly, a state of Martial Law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution.
§ Allegedly, certain elements from the opposition, the Left and military adventurists constituting the extreme Right had formed an alliance with the hackneyed objective of overthrowing not only the present administration but of democracy as well.
§ Allegedly, their actions as well as the media’s rash exaggeration of their claims have contributed to the hindrance of the country’s economic growth as well as to the sabotaging of the citizenry’s faith in the government which, taken as a whole, constitute a clear and present danger to the safety of the State and of the people.
§ Thus, pursuant to the pertinent provisions of the 1987 Constitution, GMA declares a State of Emergency (Article XII, section 17), calls out the Armed Forces to take matters concerning peace and order into their hands upon her bidding (Article VII, section 18), all in line with the primary governmental duty of defending and preserving the democratic institutions and the State (Article II, section 4).
In other words, last Friday, February 24, 2006, we awoke to a day of infamy and irony as we commemorated the 20th anniversary of democracy’s victory by its curtailment.
A second look at Proclamation No. 1017, the circumstances surrounding it and the cited provisions of the 1987 Constitution will show the impropriety of the President’s actions.
Thru Proclamation No. 1017, GMA had bestowed unto herself the power to make decrees and orders similar to those Marcos used to legislate to bequeath upon his person unbridled law-making powers. Thus, Proclamation No. 1017 is clearly tainted with utmost capriciousness in addition to being devoid of defined standards or guidelines. Furthermore, it does not delineate the extent of the declared emergency.
Significantly, the President had already declared in a public statement that the situation is in control and that whatever threat existed had already been suppressed and nipped at the bud. If that is the case then there is no real need for promulgating Proclamation No. 1017. In this light, not only is Proclamation No. 1017 capricious but it is also devoid of basis.
A State of Emergency is a governmental declaration that suspends particular functions of government, which may work to alert citizens to change their normal behaviors or order certain agencies to come up with emergency preparedness plans. In the Philippine context, unlike in States which equate it with Martial Law, it is a unique concept under Article XII, section 17 of the present constitution. The provision deals with a situation of an economy-related National Emergency for it confers upon the President under reasonable terms extraordinary economic powers, specifically to “temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest.” It does not give her the license to call out the armed forces to take matters into their hands. The proper platform for such action is the declaration of a State of Rebellion or Invasion.
Finally, Article VII, section 18 (the commander-in-chief provision) gives the president the authority to:
§ call out the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion,
§ suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and
§ place the country or any part thereof under Martial Law.
Such powers are granted only in specified conditions and that is when there exists lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. The mere alleged alliance between the opposition, the Left and the Right to overthrow GMA’s administration cannot be clearly considered as falling under any of the three specific conditions.
In conclusion, though one cannot help but fear the possibility of GMA using Proclamation No. 1017 as a stepping stone for the eventual declaration of a State of Rebellion subsequently followed by the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the declaration of Martial Law, one too must be mindful that our present Constitution is not without adequate safeguards when that possibility is realized. Though it may be argued that the actual calling out of the armed forces is not subject to judicial review since the president is authorized to do so “whenever it is necessary” and that its factual necessity is something for the president to decide (Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, GR No. 141284, 08/15/2000), an action to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the power to impose Martial Law are subject to:
§ a time limit of sixty (60) days;
§ review and possible revocation by Congress; and
§ review of the sufficiency of its factual basis and its possible nullification of the Supreme Court upon the filing of a suit by any citizen in an appropriate proceeding.
Furthermore, Martial Law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be declared depending on the existence of two factual bases:
§ the existence of ACTUAL invasion or rebellion, and
§ the requirements of public safety.
Lastly and most importantly, a state of Martial Law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution.
posted by BJ at 12:34 PM
2 Comments:
Hopefully, all the Filipino bloggers' efforts to inform and awaken people from their apathetic stupor can do enough to spur a more acive citizenry.
Let us all voice out our opinions before it becomes dangerous for us to do so.
-Maria A. Jose
Filipino citizen
my dad doesn't want me to rally. he fears for my safety. but really. how safe is safe if this is the state of affairs? how safe is safe if you have someone like GMA for president-i hesitate to say leader-? how safe is safe? is safe really worth it?
Post a Comment
<< Home