SC asked to reconsider ‘1017’ ruling

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asked the Supreme Court (SC) yesterday to reconsider its May 3 ruling, which declared the Philippine National Police (PNP) implementation of warrantless arrests and searches under Presidential Proclamation 1017 unconstitutional.

President Arroyo issued the proclamation placing the country under a state of national emergency following an alleged failed coup d’état last Feb. 24.

In a 35-page motion for partial reconsideration, Solicitor General Eduardo Nachura also asked the SC to reconsider its decision striking down General Order No. 5, particularly the authority of the President to call upon the military to suppress acts of terrorism and Mrs. Arroyo’s use of emergency powers under Article XII, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution.

Nachura said "the validity of the pertinent provisions in Proclamation 1017 and General Order No. 5... must necessarily be upheld and sustained."

With an 11 to 3 vote last month, the SC upheld the constitutionality of Proclamation 1017 but declared invalid crackdowns not related to lawless violence.

The SC also said that while the declaration of a state of emergency is valid, "such declaration does not authorize the President to take over privately-owned public utility or businesses affected with public interest without prior legislation."

Nachura insisted that the President may validly call on the military to suppress acts of terrorism, despite the lack of a legal definition of the term in the Philippines.

"While there is no dispute that Congress has yet to enact a law defining and punishing acts of terrorism, it is utterly inaccurate to conclude that the phrase ‘act of terrorism’ remains a vague and amorphous concept," Nachura said.

He added that waiting for a legislative imprimatur on the definition of the term terrorism will render ineffective the military’s mandated role to defend and protect citizens under the discretion of the President — particularly in times of emergency.

Nachura said the phrase "act of terrorism" cannot be stricken "for being vague or overboard on the sole basis of lack of legal definition," adding that the term "can be the legal definition in this jurisdiction." — Jose Rodel Clapano