What national emergency?

We survived Martial Law, but ironically, on the 20th anniversary of People Power in EDSA, our freedom is once again being threatened. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 1017 on Feb. 24, 2006,using as factual basis the conspiracy of extreme left and extreme right to bring down the duly constituted government, recklessly magnified by certain segments of national media. Her legal basis is her power to call out the Armed Forces as commander in chief under Article VII section 18 and that a state of national emergency exits, using Article XII Section 17.

But the only national emergency that the people know, especially those in the provinces, is the one that GMA created through her Proclamation No. 1017. She blames the opposition for political instability which negatively affects the economy, without seeing that the problem is right in her own yard.

It does not take a genius to see that the targets of the Proclamation are the leftists, the media, and businesses that are unfriendly to the GMA administration. Within 48 hours, Bayan Muna's Representative Crispin Beltran was arrested, and the chase is still on to capture Satur Ocampo, and probably Liza Maza. Arrests of some military or former military officers were also announced, though we have no clear information as to the charges and the developments after their arrests.

When asked on radio about what the Proclamation means in terms of arrests without warrants, I heard Department of Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez say on the radio that even without this Proclamation, the rule on warrantless arrests under the Rules of Court applies. However, he said that with this Proclamation, "with more reason" that warrantless arrests apply. I leave this to you, all the good lawyers out there, to comment on such an "a fortiori" reasoning.

Even my taxi driver on the way to the airport asked the obvious question - so if you don't need it to arrest people without a warrant, why issue a Proclamation at all?

And he continued to say what millions believe - if they close down or interfere with the media, how will the people know what is the truth? Filipinos all over the country, from a small island to the taxi drivers in the streets of Metro Manila, have only the radio to listen to. As discerning listeners, they know what radio stations to listen to. Interference by the government in the operations of media establishments is, in effect, prior restraint, which is unconstitutional.

Let me quote Section 17 Article II of the Constitution - "In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest." These businesses include not only the media but also transportation, fuel and electricity.

Who determines whether a state of national emergency exits, the GMA government itself? Whatever happened to the powers of Congress? And you call this a democratic government?

The government says that there are attempts from the left and from the right to create instability and topple the government of GMA. What is clear is that surveys show that 80 percent of the Filipinos do not want GMA to stay as president. Thousands have gone to the streets in the last three days to repeat the call for her to resign. But that is not a "national emergency" that warrants a declaration of a state of emergency. A declaration of a state of national emergency can only be done by Congress.

Furthermore, as the statement of alternative law groups emphasizes, in the case of Agan, Jr. vs. Piatco (2003), the Supreme Court defined "national emergency" to include threat from external aggression, calamities or national disasters, but not strikes "unless it is of such proportion that would paralyze government service."

GMA invokes Section 18, Article VII and I quote: "The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress.

The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it. XXX"

If GMA thinks there is lawless violence or rebellion, why hasn't she suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus or declared Martial Law? That is because she cannot do these two things without the approval of Congress. It is obvious, therefore, that this Proclamation No. 1017 is but a legal justification for a crackdown on those who oppose GMA.

The government has closed down The Tribune because Ninez Cacho Olivares, its editor, has long been a staunch critic of GMA. It cannot even cite a single seditious article of the Tribune. I am certain that some of the advisers of GMA know that their tactic will be shot down by the Supreme Court, but in the meantime, they would have been able to do what they want to do - cause a chilling effect on all citizens, arrest the leaders of the left, control the media, and control public utilities or businesses affected with pubic interest.

We are lucky that we have a Senate that will not take this sitting down. Alternative lawyers and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines will definitely go to the Supreme Court. We in the media cannot do less. We should not allow this government to stifle our freedom to write the truth and our freedom to express our opinion and criticize the government. If it takes another 20 years to continue fighting for these, so be it.*

back to top