SC tackles ‘1017’ today

The Supreme Court (SC) will start today deliberations on the legality of Proclamation 1017, which President Arroyo invoked in placing the country under a state of national emergency following what the administration described as a failed coup last February.

In a telephone interview, Supreme Court assistant court administrator and spokesman Ismael Khan Jr. said the High Court would definitely release a ruling on Proclamation 1017 before its "decision-writing break" from May 8 to June 2.

"Definitely, the Supreme Court justices will tackle (1017… today)," he said.

The SC has ruled on two other controversial presidential directives: Executive Order 464 requiring Cabinet secretaries and military and police officials to secure the President’s permission before they could attend congressional hearings, and the calibrated preemptive response (CPR) which strictly implemented the "no permit, no yally" policy contained in Batas Pambansa No. 880.

Last March 8, the High Court ordered the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and opponents of Proclamation 1017 to submit their memorandums until March 22.

During oral arguments last March 7, then Solicitor General Alfredo Benipayo blamed the police’s improper implementation of Proclamation 1017 for the opponent’s allegations that the government had "trampled on civil liberties."

Benipayo said Proclamation 1017 did not contain any provision that authorized warrantless arrests, raids and confiscations.

"She (Mrs. Arroyo) did alert the military, but they knew what is legal and illegal," he said. "If any irregularity has been committed, that has not been ordered by Proclamation 1017."

Benipayo said the supposed violation of freedom of assembly, speech and the press by the police could not be condoned.

"You cannot blame the President for unlawful application of the law," he said. "If at all, the erring officers may independently be made answerable for such unwarranted acts, for which the appropriate remedy is given under existing administrative civil and penal laws."

Benipayo asked the High Court to compel the petitioners to file their complaints for the alleged violation of civil liberties before an appropriate court.

"If they have complaints, let them file charges against those who committed the supposed illegal acts," he said.

On the other hand, former University of the Philippines law dean Raul Pangalangan said Proclamation 1017 was "martial law in disguise."

Appearing as legal counsel for UP Prof. Randy David, Pangalangan said that some people, among them David and party-list Rep. Crispin Beltran, were arrested without a warrant of arrest because of the misinterpretation and misapplication of Proclamation 1017.

"The government, through Proclamation 1017, implemented an across-the-board prohibition of public protest, arrest persons without warrant of arrests and curtail the freedom of the press," he said.

"Proclamation 1017 affects the civil rights of the people, which is squarely in the ambit of the Supreme Court."

Pangalangan said Proclamation 1017 has a chilling effect because of the rampant violation of civil rights.

"If, indeed, there is truth to the claims of the President in Proclamation 1017 that the situation of the country is serious and there was clear and present danger, the proper recourse that she would have done is to declare martial law, suspend the (privilege of the writ of) habeas corpus and submit herself to the review of Congress," he said.

Thirteen minors, aged 12 to 17 years old, were arrested by the police during the implementation of Proclamation 1017, he added.

Pangalangan said "the gray area" is the dangerous part of Proclamation 1017.

"The declaration has been lifted, but the effects linger," he said.

"This Honorable Court must declare that Proclamation 1017 is invalid so that President Arroyo will not issue the proclamation again. The mooting of the case must not (stop) the court... from ruling (on it)."

Pangalangan said the Supreme Court must issue a ruling to prevent Mrs. Arroyo from implementing the same proclamation.

"Professor David was arrested based on the provisions of Proclamation 1017," he said.

"He was initially informed that he was invited for questioning based on Proclamation 1017 and he was told he cannot refuse it. He was informed that he will be charged with violation of Batasang Pambansa 880 and inciting to sedition for the first time during the inquest proceedings and the prosecutor’s office said there is no probable cause to charge him."

Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban said that martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can only be implemented if there is "actual rebellion or invasion."

Meanwhile, former senator Rene Saguisag, who represents The Daily Tribune and its publisher Ninez Cacho-Olivares, asked the High Court to immediately issue an order requiring the Philippine National Police to return to the newspaper several pictures and clippings seized from its offices last Feb. 25.

"Proclamation 1017 was not lifted, that was face-lifting," he said.

"For the PNP, it would not be a chilling effect, but a thrilling effect... They think that they can get Crispin Beltran, Gen. Ramon Montaño while playing golf, Randy David for walking in the sidewalk and Ninez Cacho-Olivares for criticizing the government.

"This is not the case that (such as) illegal drugs, firearms, can be prevented. This is a case of ideas."

Saguisag said he was told by Cacho-Olivares that there were bugging devices installed by the PNP at The Tribune offices in Ermita Manila.

"We asked this court to issue a clear order directing the PNP to return all the property taken by the police from The Daily Tribune," he said.

"From day one, we have been critical against the administration. The Tribune has been constantly hitting the administration. These are protected rights. There are many who had constantly praised the government. They have many trillions."

Saguisag said the policemen who raided The Tribune committed "trespass, theft and their presence in media entities is highly questionable."

Saguisag said everybody knows that the orientation of The Tribune is to be critical of the government.

"The harassment of The Daily Tribune appeared to be a warning against bigger media entities, like ABS-CBN and the Philippine Daily Inquirer," he said.

"We come here to ask you that the Supreme Court draw the line. The policeman cannot enter any property and be not held answerable to that."

Saguisag said there is an attempt on the part of the administration to "test the waters."

"We must resist the first encroachment," he said.

"We would hope to get a clear cut ruling because this is an attempt to test the waters if they can get away with it."

On the other hand, former senator Loren Legarda asked the Supreme Court to declare Proclamation 1017 and General Order No. 5 as unconstitutional for curtailing the freedom of expression and imposing prior restraint on journalists.

"Our Constitution clearly mandates that no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression or the press," she said.

"Most unfortunately, Proclamation 1017 and General Order No. 5 fit into the mold that violate these preferred freedoms."

Legarda said her protest before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal relies largely on evidence given by the public as reported in the media.

"The Garci tapes which were played up in media were rich sources of information, from which relevant evidence could be culled," she said.

"Now, under Proclamation 1017, informants suffer under a prior restraint for fear that they could be held by respondents to account for what Proclamation 1017 describes as sabotaging the people’s confidence in government." — Jose Rodel Clapano