Furthermore, the methods used in implementing the constitutional portion of 1017 have also been declared unconstitutional particularly the warrant-less arrests, searches and seizures, the violation of the right to peaceful assembly and the freedom of speech and of the press. The SC also said that the President cannot issue decrees similar to those issued during Marcos time obviously because 1017 is not martial law instrument. Overall, the 72- page SC decision is a gentle but powerful reminder to the Chief Executive that strong arm tactics have no place in a democracy. If the ruling on E.O. 464 and the CPR can be considered as two strikes against the Administration, this ruling is strike three.
These three recent outstanding SC decisions involving the fundamental law of the land are definitely not something that the legal advisers of the President can be proud of. The Palace spinmasters will surely have a hard time convincing people that they are decisions favorable rather than adverse to the objectives of the Administration in adopting the moves that triggered those cases. Apparently the errors committed by the Palace legal advisers arise to a greater extent not from ignorance of the law but from arrogance of power – an arrogance best exemplified by no less than her DOJ Secretary.
Maybe it’s about time for the President to shift gears in her manner of exercise of power. She cannot always use force like she did when the impeachment case against her was thrown out by her overwhelming number of backers in the Lower House. This kind of arrogance is again rearing its ugly head in the current moves to revise the Charter through people’s initiative. The SC has already ruled that people’s initiative cannot be used to change the charter because there is no implementing law and because the system of initiative is allowed only for amendment and not revision of the Constitution. So the idea of convincing the SC to change its mind because it is the "sigaw ng bayan" should be abandoned. It may just result in another setback and make it four "strikes" against the Administration. The SC cannot just say that the implementing law it found inadequate is now adequate simply because this is clamor of 8.5 million Filipinos proven by signatures gathered under dubious circumstances. The inadequacies of a law can only be filled by another law.
I am sure that the President’s appeal for unity especially during these times is every Filipino’s aspirations including those in the opposition. But she has to back up that appeal by refraining from constitutionally questionable moves that are bound to create disputes and bickering. This is my unsolicited advice.