SC hearings on Proclamation 1017 to proceed

The Supreme Court may still hear the oral arguments for and against Proclamation 1017 and General Order No. 5 on March 7 despite President Arroyo’s decision to lift the orders, SC assistant court administrator and spokesman Ismael Khan Jr. said yesterday.

Khan cited the "Sanlakas vs Executive Secretary case," in which the SC opted to rule on a consolidated case filed by groups and individuals questioning the legality of Proclamation 427 and General Order No. 4 which Mrs. Arroyo issued after the July 27, 2003 Oakwood mutiny despite a similar preemptive move by Malacañang to revoke the proclamations ahead of the High Tribunal’s ruling.

Proclamation 1017 placed the entire country under a state of national emergency while General Order No. 5 called on the military to suppress terrorism.

The Senate has announced that it will also push through with the investigation on the alleged unconstitutional acts committed by the administration in declaring a state of national emergency.

Senate Majority Leader Francis Pangilinan said there is a need to determine whether the raid on the offices of The Daily Tribune, the warrantless arrests of opposition leaders and other acts that followed the proclamation violated the constitutionally protected rights of the people.

"We cannot simply gloss over these violations if established because to do so would send the signal to the government that it can do as it pleases regardless of what the Constitution says," he said.

Pangilinan noted that the proclamation gave the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) "unbridled broad discretion" to carry out the declaration which opens up "boundless opportunities" for abuse and violation of fundamental human rights.

"Now more than ever, the Senate must act as a check and balance on the executive and we will not shirk from this constitutional duty," he added.

Various sectors have been affected by Proclamation 1017, including the tourism industry. Sen. Richard Gordon said the lifting of the order was welcome news as there were numerous cancellations reported by hotels due to apprehensions over the proclamation.

"I am very pleased that the state of national emergency has been lifted because it has created a lot of ripples all over the country and abroad," he said.

Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez, however, hinted that Malacañang could still come out with yet another proclamation if the security situation makes this necessary.

"We could always re-impose it when the necessity arises," Gonzalez said.

He cited the explosions yesterday at the Eastern Police District, which he said were a provocation meant to taunt Mrs. Arroyo, knowing that she was planning to announce the lifting of Proclamation 1017.

The justice chief said despite the lifting of the state of national emergency, a number of measures will be implemented such as the prohibition of illegal rallies.

Warrantless arrest, according to Gonzalez, even without Proclamation 1017, may still be implemented for the arrest of offenders caught en flagrante delicto (in the act) and for fugitive inmates.

"We will continue monitoring media entities," Gonzalez added.

He welcomes though the March 7 SC hearing on the petition filed by congressmen led by House Minority Leader Francis Escudero, the 17 lawyers groups under the Alternative Law Group (ALG), The Daily Tribune led by its publisher Niñez Cacho-Olivares, UP professor Randy David’s group, former senator Loren Legarda, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU).

"It’s good that the Supreme Court would proceed with it and decide on the case. We are not afraid to face the legal challenge. When we decided to impose, we knew the legalities," Gonzalez said.

In the Sanlakas vs Executive Secretary case, the SC ruled that the claim by petitioners that the declaration of a state of rebellion by Mrs. Arroyo amounted to a declaration of martial law was "a leap of logic."

"There is no allegation of curtailment of civil or political rights. There is no indication that the President has exercised judicial and legislative powers. In short, there is no illustration that the President has attempted to exercise or has exercised martial law powers," the SC stated.

"The President, in declaring a state of rebellion and in calling out the armed forces, was merely exercising a wedding of her chief executive and commander-in-chief powers. These powers are purely executive powers vested in the President," it added. — Jose Rodel Clapano, Marvin Sy