SC Monitor is a new section of La Vida Lawyer where we will feature noted recent Supreme Court decisions published in the Supreme Court website, www.supremecourt.gov.ph .
PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC. (PEOPLE’S JOURNAL), ZACARIAS NUGUID, JR. and CRISTINA LEE, - versus - FRANCIS THOENEN,
G.R. No. 143372 December 13, 2005 (ABRIDGED. A complete copy of the decision is found here.
J. MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO wrote the opinion of the Court.
FACTS:
On 30 September 1990, the following news item appeared in the People’s Journal, a tabloid of general circulation:
"Swiss Shoots Neighbors’ Pets
RESIDENTS of a subdivision in Parañaque have asked the Bureau of Immigration to deport a Swiss who allegedly shoots wayward neighbors’ pets that he finds in his domain.
The BF Homes residents through lawyer Atty. Efren Angara complained that the deportation of Francis Thoenen, of 10 Calcutta BF Homes Phase III, could help “prevent the recurrence of such incident in the future.”
Angara explained that house owners could not control their dogs and cats when they slip out of their dwellings unnoticed.
An alleged confrontation between Thoenen and the owner of a pet he shot recently threatens to exacerbate the problem, Angara said.
Cristina Lee"
The subject of this article, Francis Thoenen, is a retired engineer permanently residing in this country with his Filipina wife and their children. Claiming that the report was false and defamatory, and that the petitioners acted irresponsibly in failing to verify the truth of the same prior to publication, he filed a civil case for damages against herein petitioners Philippine Journalists, Inc., Zacarias Nuguid, Jr., its publisher, and reporter Cristina Lee.
The principal source of the article was a letter by a certain Atty. Efren Angara addressed to Commissioner Andrea Domingo of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID, now Bureau of Immigration), which states:
Dear Madame:
We would like to request your office to verify the true status/authenticity of the residency in the Philippines of a foreign national (a Swiss) by the name of Francis Thoenen who is presently residing at No. 10 Calcuta cor. Beirut Street, BF Homes (PH. III), Parañaque, Metro Manila. I received (sic) complaint from my clients residing around his vicinity that this foreigner had (sic) been causing troubles ever since he showed up. He is too meticulous and had (sic) been shooting dogs and cats passing his house wall everytime.
Such act which (sic) is unacceptable to the owners especially if inspite (sic) of control their pets slips (sic) out unnoticed. A confrontation between him and the owner of the dog he shoot, (sic) already occurred last time. In some instances this guy had been always driving his car barbarously inside the subdivision with children playing around (sic) the street. Before my clients petitioned themselves with the endorsement of the Homeowners Association and filed to your office for deportation we’re respectfully seeking your assistance to investigate this alien to prevent further incident occurrence (sic) in the future. He should not be allowed to dominate the citizens of this country.
Very truly yours,
Atty. Efren B. Angara
The petitioners claim that Lee, as the reporter assigned to cover news events in the CID, acquired a copy of the above letter from a trusted source in the CID’s Intelligence Division. They claimed to “have reasonable grounds to believe in the truth and veracity of the information derived (from their) sources.”
It was proven at trial that the news article contained several inaccuracies. The headline, which categorically stated that the subject of the article engaged in the practice of shooting pets, was untrue.[5] Moreover, it is immediately apparent from a comparison between the above letter and the news item in question that while the letter is a mere request for verification of Thoenen’s status, Lee wrote that residents of BF Homes had “asked the Bureau of Immigration to deport a Swiss who allegedly shoots neighbors’ pets.” No complaints had in fact been lodged against him by any of the BF Homeowners,[6] nor had any pending deportation proceedings been initiated against him in the Bureau of Immigration.
Thoenen also submitted a Certification from the Office of the Bar Confidant that there was no lawyer in its rolls by the name of Efren Angara, earlier cited by petitioner Lee as the author of the letter on which she based her article. Finally, the trial also showed that despite the fact that respondent’s address was indicated in the letter, Cristina Lee made no efforts to contact either him or the purported letter-writer, Atty. Angara.
HELD:
For the reasons stated below, we hold that the constitutional privilege granted under the freedom of speech and the press against liability for damages does not extend to the petitioners in this case.
“The right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words - those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.” [19]
Libel is not protected speech. An allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a person the commission of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt, or which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
As a general rule, malice is presumed. Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code states:
ART. 354. Requirement of Publicity. - Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases:
1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.
The article is not a privileged communication. We first discussed the freedom of speech and press and assembly vis-a-vis the laws on libel and slander in the groundbreaking case of US v. Bustos, where we applied the prevailing English and American jurisprudence to the effect that:
"The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience. A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts. Only thus can the intelligence and dignity of the individual be exalted. Of course, criticism does not authorize defamation. Nevertheless, as the individual is less than the State, so must expected criticism be born for the common good? Rising superior to any official, or set of officials, to the Chief Executive, to the Legislature, to the Judiciary - to any or all the agencies of Government - public opinion should be the constant source of liberty and democracy. (citations omitted)
The demand to protect public opinion for the welfare of society and the orderly administration of government inevitably lead to the adoption of the doctrine of privileged communication. “A privileged communication may be either absolutely privileged or qualifiedly privileged. Absolutely privileged communications are those which are not actionable even if the author has acted in bad faith. An example is found in Sec. 11, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution which exempts a member of Congress from liability for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any Committee thereof. Upon the other hand, qualifiedly privileged communications containing defamatory imputations are not actionable unless found to have been made without good intention or justifiable motive. To this genre belong ‘private communications’ and ‘fair and true report without any comments or remarks.’”
The appellate court correctly ruled that the petitioners’ story is not privileged in character, for it is neither “private communication” nor a fair and true report without any comments or remarks.
US v. Bustos defined the concept of private communication thus: “A communication made bona fide upon any subject-matter in which the party communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he has a duty, is privileged, if made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty, although it contained criminatory matter which without this privilege would be slanderous and actionable. A pertinent illustration of the application of qualified privilege is a complaint made in good faith and without malice in regard to the character or conduct of a public official when addressed to an officer or a board having some interest or duty in the matter.”
This defense is unavailing to petitioners. In Daez v. Court of Appeals[26] we held that:
As a rule, it is the right and duty of a citizen to make a complaint of any misconduct on the part of public officials, which comes to his notice, to those charged with supervision over them. Such a communication is qualifiedly privileged and the author is not guilty of libel. The rule on privilege, however, imposes an additional requirement. Such complaints should be addressed solely to some official having jurisdiction to inquire into the charges, or power to redress the grievance or has some duty to perform or interest in connection therewith. (emphasis supplied)
In the instant case, even if we assume that the letter written by the spurious Atty. Angara is privileged communication, it lost its character as such when the matter was published in the newspaper and circulated among the general population. A written letter containing libelous matter cannot be classified as privileged when it is published and circulated in public,[27] which was what the petitioners did in this case.
Neither is the news item a fair and true report without any comments or remarks of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings; there is in fact no proceeding to speak of. Nor is the article related to any act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions, for it concerns only false imputations against Thoenen, a private individual seeking a quiet life.
The petitioners also claim to have made the report out of a “social and moral duty to inform the public on matters of general interest.”
In Borjal v. Court of Appeals, we stated that “the enumeration under Art. 354 is not an exclusive list of qualifiedly privileged communications since fair commentaries on matters of public interest are likewise privileged. We stated that the doctrine of fair commentaries means “that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition.”
Again, this argument is unavailing to the petitioners. As we said, the respondent is a private individual, and not a public official or public figure. We are persuaded by the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.,[29] that a newspaper or broadcaster publishing defamatory falsehoods about an individual who is neither a public official nor a public figure may not claim a constitutional privilege against liability, for injury inflicted, even if the falsehood arose in a discussion of public interest.[30]
Having established that the article cannot be considered as privileged communication, malice is therefore presumed, and the fourth requisite for the imputation of libel to attach to the petitioners in this case is met. The news article is therefore defamatory and is not within the realm of protected speech. There is no longer a need to discuss the other assignment of errors, save for the amount of damages to which respondent is entitled.
In Policarpio v. Manila Times Publishing Co., Inc., we awarded damages where the defendants deliberately presented a private individual in a worse light that what she actually was, and where other factual errors were not prevented although defendants had the means to ascertain the veracity of their report. Such are the facts obtaining here.
We must point out that Lee’s brief news item contained falsehoods on two levels. On its face, her statement that residents of BF Homes had “asked the Bureau of Immigration to deport a Swiss who allegedly shoots neighbors’ pets” is patently untrue since the letter of the spurious Atty. Angara was a mere request for verification of Thoenen’s status as a foreign resident. Lee’s article, moreover, is also untrue, in that the events she reported never happened. The respondent had never shot any of his neighbors’ pets, no complaints had been lodged against him by his neighbors, and no deportation proceedings had been initiated against him. Worse, the author of Lee’s main source of information, Atty. Efren Angara, apparently either does not exist, or is not a lawyer. Petitioner Lee would have been enlightened on substantially all these matters had she but tried to contact either Angara or Thoenen.
Although it has been stressed that a newspaper “should not be held to account to a point of suppression for honest mistakes, or imperfection in the choice of words,” even the most liberal view of free speech has never countenanced the publication of falsehoods, especially the persistent and unmitigated dissemination of patent lies.[ “There is no constitutional value in false statements of fact. Neither the intentional lie nor the careless error materially advances society’s interest in ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open’ debate.” The use of the known lie as a tool is at once at odds with the premises of democratic government and with the orderly manner in which economic, social, or political change is to be effected. Calculated falsehood falls into that class of utterances which “are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality… The knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection” (citations omitted).
The legitimate state interest underlying the law of libel is the compensation of the individuals for the harm inflicted upon them by defamatory falsehood. After all, the individual’s right to protection of his own good name “reflects no more than our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being – a concept at the root of any decent system of ordered liberty.”[36]
The appellate court awarded Thoenen moral damages of P200,000.00, exemplary damages of P50,000.00 and legal fees of P30,000.00, to be borne jointly and severally by the herein petitioners. In Guevarra v. Almario, we noted that the damages in a libel case must depend upon the facts of the particular case and the sound discretion of the court, although appellate courts were “more likely to reduce damages for libel than to increase them.” So it is in this case.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals of 17 January 2000 reversing the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 62, Makati City, of 31 August 1994 is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the modification that petitioners are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, moral damages in the sum of P100,000.00, exemplary damages of P30,000.00, and legal fees of P20,000.00. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
DOJ charges are ridiculous -PCIJ
PCIJ Statement
IN an interview with ANC this afternoon, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez said that that the government is monitoring the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ). “It is very clear,” he said, “they have been posting in their website many things I consider as inciting to sedition. We are studying them.”
“For example,” he added, “ the fact that it kept on posting the matters in the Garci tape is violative of [Republic Act] 4200 (the anti-wiretapping law).”
This charge is ridiculous. In June 2005, the PCIJ posted the three-hour audio recording of the alleged phone conversations of former elections commissioner Virgilio Garcillano. Our intent was to inform the public of the contents of those conversations so that they can make an independent judgment on the allegations of election fraud. The recording was clearly a matter of public interest, and it was this interest that we were upholding.
How can we be accused of inciting to sedition and of violating the anti-wiretapping law by posting the audio files of a tape that has been played in Congress? Radio and television stations have played portions of the tape as well. Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye even played and presented to the media a different version of the supposedly wiretapped recording. Moreover, that recording is posted in about a dozen other websites and blogs.
Yet the Justice Secretary has prejudged our case and made a conclusion without giving the PCIJ the benefit of due process. How can a Justice Secretary do that?
As far as we know, the Bill of Rights and the Rules of Court are still in place. We are presumed innocent until proven guilty. We cannot be pronounced guilty on his mere say so.
I would like to ask the Justice Secretary: When the PCIJ published its exposés on the unexplained wealth and mansions of former President Joseph Estrada in 2001, were we also inciting to sedition? Our reports were used in the impeachment charge against Estrada. Were we inciting to sedition then? If some people went to Edsa after reading our reports, was that inciting to sedition?
If it is, then any legitimate piece of investigative journalism is seditious. Then anything that comes out in the media today can be construed to be seditious.
Secretary Gonzalez intends to intimidate the PCIJ. That is not his job. The job of the justice system is to provide an enabling environment that allows free and responsible journalism to be practiced. It is to protect journalists like ourselves from harassment suits and ridiculous charges. Instead he has become the purveyor of these charges. We are so very disappointed.
Sheila S. Coronel
15 March 2006
IN an interview with ANC this afternoon, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez said that that the government is monitoring the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ). “It is very clear,” he said, “they have been posting in their website many things I consider as inciting to sedition. We are studying them.”
“For example,” he added, “ the fact that it kept on posting the matters in the Garci tape is violative of [Republic Act] 4200 (the anti-wiretapping law).”
This charge is ridiculous. In June 2005, the PCIJ posted the three-hour audio recording of the alleged phone conversations of former elections commissioner Virgilio Garcillano. Our intent was to inform the public of the contents of those conversations so that they can make an independent judgment on the allegations of election fraud. The recording was clearly a matter of public interest, and it was this interest that we were upholding.
How can we be accused of inciting to sedition and of violating the anti-wiretapping law by posting the audio files of a tape that has been played in Congress? Radio and television stations have played portions of the tape as well. Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye even played and presented to the media a different version of the supposedly wiretapped recording. Moreover, that recording is posted in about a dozen other websites and blogs.
Yet the Justice Secretary has prejudged our case and made a conclusion without giving the PCIJ the benefit of due process. How can a Justice Secretary do that?
As far as we know, the Bill of Rights and the Rules of Court are still in place. We are presumed innocent until proven guilty. We cannot be pronounced guilty on his mere say so.
I would like to ask the Justice Secretary: When the PCIJ published its exposés on the unexplained wealth and mansions of former President Joseph Estrada in 2001, were we also inciting to sedition? Our reports were used in the impeachment charge against Estrada. Were we inciting to sedition then? If some people went to Edsa after reading our reports, was that inciting to sedition?
If it is, then any legitimate piece of investigative journalism is seditious. Then anything that comes out in the media today can be construed to be seditious.
Secretary Gonzalez intends to intimidate the PCIJ. That is not his job. The job of the justice system is to provide an enabling environment that allows free and responsible journalism to be practiced. It is to protect journalists like ourselves from harassment suits and ridiculous charges. Instead he has become the purveyor of these charges. We are so very disappointed.
Sheila S. Coronel
15 March 2006
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Sol-Gen Alfredo Benipayo resigns
Inq7.net reports that Solicitor General Alfredo Benipayo has tendered his resignation effective April 1, 2006, thus ending his long and distinguished career in government. Sec. Raul Gonzalez, of the Department of Justice said the reason for the resignation was Benipayo's desire to go back to private life. See story here.
Predictably, the Palace will downplay this major setback, in spite of the fact that it has a number "must-win" cases that are pending with the Supreme Court, which cases Sol-Gen Benipayo would leave behind.
But we cannot help but speculate about the reason for the sudden decision of Sol-Gen Benipayo to resign. Was he privately castigated for having admitted to the press that the police erroneously implemented Proc. No. 1017? Does he think his task of winning those "must-win" cases is impossible? Is he sick and tired of always defending the wrong side? is one plus one equals two? Was he asked to leave so a more trusted Palace protege (i.e., Sigma Rhoan, Rotarian, or Ateneo law classmate of you know who) could take his place? Yet, no matter how hard the Palace will try to unmate Benipayo's resignation with the ugliness of the cases it has thrown to the Sol-Gen's door, considering that this is a precarious situation for the Government to have its chief counsel walking out, people will think that this is a case of a lawyer dumping his impossible client.
Viva Benipayo!
Predictably, the Palace will downplay this major setback, in spite of the fact that it has a number "must-win" cases that are pending with the Supreme Court, which cases Sol-Gen Benipayo would leave behind.
But we cannot help but speculate about the reason for the sudden decision of Sol-Gen Benipayo to resign. Was he privately castigated for having admitted to the press that the police erroneously implemented Proc. No. 1017? Does he think his task of winning those "must-win" cases is impossible? Is he sick and tired of always defending the wrong side? is one plus one equals two? Was he asked to leave so a more trusted Palace protege (i.e., Sigma Rhoan, Rotarian, or Ateneo law classmate of you know who) could take his place? Yet, no matter how hard the Palace will try to unmate Benipayo's resignation with the ugliness of the cases it has thrown to the Sol-Gen's door, considering that this is a precarious situation for the Government to have its chief counsel walking out, people will think that this is a case of a lawyer dumping his impossible client.
Viva Benipayo!
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Ridiculous Propaganda
Thanks to Rizalist who gave the link to the video of the Government-produced clip on Proc. No. 1017. I fell asleep midway into the clip, and then I was jolted by a soundbyte that sort of theorized that there was an understanding or alliance between the Leftists and Rightists, because Atty. JV Bautista and Atty. Argee Guevarra were seen together with Col. Querubin.
I couldn't stop myself from laughing at the proposition, as I know Argee Guevarra as far back as the 80s when we were "smiling" activists in Ateneo. and he was already investing his savings in the stock market. Argee even went around with teeth braces in La Salle Greenhills. In college, Argee made his mark in poetry by self-publishing his own erotic poems and consigning them in bookstores. Argee became a lawyer in 1996, even if in the middle of his bar review he would often stop and write a poem instead. As a lawyer. Argee had a good run of famous cases including that of Ador Mawanay and the victims of the multitel scam
For many years. Argee has been writing a column for Businessworld, a capitalist tool most definitely, and is credited for having invented the concept of "Pogi Points" in one of his most memorable column pieces back in the 90's.
While Argee appears to be a member of Sanlakas, the party-list group that lost in the last elections, this does not mean he represents the sentiments of Sanlakas or even the extreme or moderate left in the political spectrum. If the military did its intelligence work properly, it would have found out that Argee's protest actions and Sanlakas affiliations are more of a cover for his bourgoise sentiments and inclinations. (50 Pogi Points for that Argee for being a politically aware yuppie.)So if you see Col. Querubin and Argee Guevarra together, you could conclude nothing, except perhaps that Argee may have found a new client for his law firm or is just making more Pogi Points for himself.
Thanks to Rizalist who gave the link to the video of the Government-produced clip on Proc. No. 1017. I fell asleep midway into the clip, and then I was jolted by a soundbyte that sort of theorized that there was an understanding or alliance between the Leftists and Rightists, because Atty. JV Bautista and Atty. Argee Guevarra were seen together with Col. Querubin.
I couldn't stop myself from laughing at the proposition, as I know Argee Guevarra as far back as the 80s when we were "smiling" activists in Ateneo. and he was already investing his savings in the stock market. Argee even went around with teeth braces in La Salle Greenhills. In college, Argee made his mark in poetry by self-publishing his own erotic poems and consigning them in bookstores. Argee became a lawyer in 1996, even if in the middle of his bar review he would often stop and write a poem instead. As a lawyer. Argee had a good run of famous cases including that of Ador Mawanay and the victims of the multitel scam
For many years. Argee has been writing a column for Businessworld, a capitalist tool most definitely, and is credited for having invented the concept of "Pogi Points" in one of his most memorable column pieces back in the 90's.
While Argee appears to be a member of Sanlakas, the party-list group that lost in the last elections, this does not mean he represents the sentiments of Sanlakas or even the extreme or moderate left in the political spectrum. If the military did its intelligence work properly, it would have found out that Argee's protest actions and Sanlakas affiliations are more of a cover for his bourgoise sentiments and inclinations. (50 Pogi Points for that Argee for being a politically aware yuppie.)So if you see Col. Querubin and Argee Guevarra together, you could conclude nothing, except perhaps that Argee may have found a new client for his law firm or is just making more Pogi Points for himself.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
MY COUNTRY IS STILL UNDER MARTIAL LAW
Alan Paguia opines that, while GMA has lifted the declaration of state of emergency, she still has the country under a state of martial law. The reason for this is because she has not recalled the provision on Proc. No. 1017 in which she mandates the members of the armed forces to maintain law and order, prevent or suppress lawless iolence and to enforce obedience to all the laws and decrees. Rizalist publishes the opinion in this link
Alan Paguia opines that, while GMA has lifted the declaration of state of emergency, she still has the country under a state of martial law. The reason for this is because she has not recalled the provision on Proc. No. 1017 in which she mandates the members of the armed forces to maintain law and order, prevent or suppress lawless iolence and to enforce obedience to all the laws and decrees. Rizalist publishes the opinion in this link
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Rep. Teddy Boy Locsin on Proc. 1017
The bright light from the abyss called the Philppine House of Representatives speaks on Proc. No. 1017, here.
" X X X She (GMA) cannot call out the armed forces to settle political or personal scores, such as raiding the Tribune for attacking her day in and day out, or escape accountability for the misdeeds of her officials, such as Joc-Joc Bolante. To paraphrase Joker P. Arroyo, there can never be an emergency power to conceal crimes or suppress the truth."
" X X X Call the situation what she pleases, but there are things she cannot do under a proclamation of national emergency.
"One is enforcing a warrant of arrest that is 20 years old on a charge that has nothing to do with the current emergency and which history has changed into a piece of flattery. This habit of dredging up stale warrants is worse than illegal, it is baduy, an example of what is called in the vernacular, utak sarhento.
"Two, she cannot cite as the root of the emergency the exercise of fundamental freedoms like speech, press and peaceful assembly. Not even if these freedoms are exercised to discredit her. National emergencies are proclaimed precisely to protect these essential democratic features, never to suppress them, especially in the context of EO 464 stopping officials from testifying, possibly on what are alleged to be her administration's misdeeds. X X X"
" X X X And while she can invoke Article 12, Sec. 17, to take over public utilities when they create or exacerbate an emergency, such as jacking up oil and energy prices, she needs both an act of Congress and a better motive than the dislike that the owners of these utilities have for her. There is no power anywhere in law or the Constitution to compel affection, loyalty, let alone cooperation. X X X"
" X X X She (GMA) cannot call out the armed forces to settle political or personal scores, such as raiding the Tribune for attacking her day in and day out, or escape accountability for the misdeeds of her officials, such as Joc-Joc Bolante. To paraphrase Joker P. Arroyo, there can never be an emergency power to conceal crimes or suppress the truth."
" X X X Call the situation what she pleases, but there are things she cannot do under a proclamation of national emergency.
"One is enforcing a warrant of arrest that is 20 years old on a charge that has nothing to do with the current emergency and which history has changed into a piece of flattery. This habit of dredging up stale warrants is worse than illegal, it is baduy, an example of what is called in the vernacular, utak sarhento.
"Two, she cannot cite as the root of the emergency the exercise of fundamental freedoms like speech, press and peaceful assembly. Not even if these freedoms are exercised to discredit her. National emergencies are proclaimed precisely to protect these essential democratic features, never to suppress them, especially in the context of EO 464 stopping officials from testifying, possibly on what are alleged to be her administration's misdeeds. X X X"
" X X X And while she can invoke Article 12, Sec. 17, to take over public utilities when they create or exacerbate an emergency, such as jacking up oil and energy prices, she needs both an act of Congress and a better motive than the dislike that the owners of these utilities have for her. There is no power anywhere in law or the Constitution to compel affection, loyalty, let alone cooperation. X X X"
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
The CPP-NPA-MAGDALO ALLIANCE: A ridiculous Idea
The alleged alliance between the CPP-NPA and the rightist coup plotters, which prompted the issuance of Proc. No 1017, is the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard, since the ambush on Enrile's car.
Everybody knows (except Gloria's intelligence network), that the CPP-NPA is not capable of joining forces with anyone, not even as a matter of strategy. The Left is fighting with the RJ's (the former partymembers who have rejected the old Maoist line), the democratic socialists (demsocs), and the social democrats (socdems). The CPP even put the demsocs and the socdems in the list of their enemies most of whom have been liquidated. So how can the CPP-NPA ally with the rightist when the CPP-NPA cannot even ally with the moderate left? Surely, the CPP and the moderate left have more things in common compared to the Magdalo? The CPP-NPA simply does not behave that way.
The Government cited that the Magdalo soldier San Juan was caught after a meeting with the NPA's in Padre Garcia, Batangas. But does that establish an alliance between the Magdalo soldiers and the CPP? A meeting does not make an alliance. I have a client who has been trying to strike a deal with the CPP-NPA just so their strike-ridden hacienda would be cleansed of armed NPA's. They have been meeting for months. Does that make my client in alliance with the CPP-NPA? Definitely not. There has to be a deal. Without a deal, it's only meeting, a mere social interaction. To accuse the Magdalos of being allies with the NPA after a meeting is not intelligence work, that's imagination.
A CPP-NPA-MAGDALO alliance? Fourteen years from now, when keeping this lie is no longer to the interest of the powers-that-be, somebody is going to say, it was a joke.
Everybody knows (except Gloria's intelligence network), that the CPP-NPA is not capable of joining forces with anyone, not even as a matter of strategy. The Left is fighting with the RJ's (the former partymembers who have rejected the old Maoist line), the democratic socialists (demsocs), and the social democrats (socdems). The CPP even put the demsocs and the socdems in the list of their enemies most of whom have been liquidated. So how can the CPP-NPA ally with the rightist when the CPP-NPA cannot even ally with the moderate left? Surely, the CPP and the moderate left have more things in common compared to the Magdalo? The CPP-NPA simply does not behave that way.
The Government cited that the Magdalo soldier San Juan was caught after a meeting with the NPA's in Padre Garcia, Batangas. But does that establish an alliance between the Magdalo soldiers and the CPP? A meeting does not make an alliance. I have a client who has been trying to strike a deal with the CPP-NPA just so their strike-ridden hacienda would be cleansed of armed NPA's. They have been meeting for months. Does that make my client in alliance with the CPP-NPA? Definitely not. There has to be a deal. Without a deal, it's only meeting, a mere social interaction. To accuse the Magdalos of being allies with the NPA after a meeting is not intelligence work, that's imagination.
A CPP-NPA-MAGDALO alliance? Fourteen years from now, when keeping this lie is no longer to the interest of the powers-that-be, somebody is going to say, it was a joke.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Fort Bonifacio Live Blog from Rizalist
Rizalist has live blog of the events in Fort Bonifacio in this post.
Classes tomorrow in all levels have been suspended.
Rizalist has live blog of the events in Fort Bonifacio in this post.
Classes tomorrow in all levels have been suspended.
A Curious Turn of Events
Marines Colonel Ariel Querubin, who a few days ago was falsely reported to have been arrested, is back in the news. He is holed up in Fort Bonifacio, and has asked people to attend a vigil for him and his marines in the Fort. Cory Aquino, Tito Guingona, and other political personalities have heeded the call, but Cory Aquino was stopped in Pasong Tamo by a checkpoint on her way to the Fort. Meanwhile, TV reports showed that a throng of people have responded to Querubin's call.
Marines Colonel Ariel Querubin, who a few days ago was falsely reported to have been arrested, is back in the news. He is holed up in Fort Bonifacio, and has asked people to attend a vigil for him and his marines in the Fort. Cory Aquino, Tito Guingona, and other political personalities have heeded the call, but Cory Aquino was stopped in Pasong Tamo by a checkpoint on her way to the Fort. Meanwhile, TV reports showed that a throng of people have responded to Querubin's call.
A CALL FOR SOLIDARITY
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS OF THE PHILIPPINES
February 26, 2006
For a few years now, the global media community has acknowledged the Philippines among the most dangerous places for journalists. In the past two years, our country has been second only to Iraq in the number of media killings. Philippine journalists have fought hard to roll back the tide of violence. Today, however, the Philippine press faces its strongest challenge.
In declaring a "state of national emergency," President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo made media among her main targets. She and senior aides warned of government takeover of media facilities considered friendly to the political opposition.
Police have already raided the offices of the Daily Tribune, a national daily. Armed men in civilian clothes have gone around the offices of Abante, the country's biggest tabloid. Police had earlier arrested Randy David, a columnist of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, holding the award-winning journalist and sociologist for five hours prosecutors said there was no ground to charge him with any crime.
The government deployed troops to the compounds of ABS-CBN 2 and GMA 7, the country's largest television networks. The government's claim was
that the soldiers were protecting these stations from a potential takeover by destabilizers.
Police have also declared that they would not hesitate to takeover media entities found "aiding" the administration's enemies. The police also said they would soon release "standards" or guidelines that journalists must follow and that investigators and prosecutors were monitoring the news.
By the government's definition, providing aid to Mrs. Arroyo's enemies includes interviewing opposition parties. In simple terms, the administration wants media to present only the side of the embattled government, using force and coercion to bend journalists to its wishes.
Filipinos, journalists included, fought a long, hard battle to regain democracy after two decades of tyranny. That Mrs. Arroyo timed this crackdown on civil liberties with the anniversary of the Marcos dictatorship's fall only highlights her break with the democratic aspirations of Filipinos. Even as she warns enemies of feeling the full force of the law, Mrs. Arroyo flaunts constitutional guarantees to free speech and expression and press freedom.
Leaders of Philippine society have spoken out against the government's iron-hand tactics. The Philippine journalism community has also moved fast to unite against this grand assault on press freedom. Today, (Sunday, Feb. 26), the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines will lead various organizations and individual journalists in protesting the crackdown on media. The Philippine media community intends to send Mrs. Arroyo a strong message: We will not go gently into the night.
We call on all our colleagues in print, broadcast and digital journalism worldwide to support Philippine media in this dark hour. Please add your voice to our protest. Let us collectively condemn the crackdown on Philippine media and remind Mrs. Arroyo that no country can be free to prosper if its media is silenced and cowed.
You can send protest letters to the government through the Office of the Press Secretary at osec@ops.gov.ph, with facsimile number (632) 735-6167 or deliver these to the nearest Philippine embassy and consulate. You can send solidarity messages to the NUJP through its email address, nujphil@gmail.com or post this on our website, www.nujp.org. National Union of Journalists of the Philippines
February 26, 2006
For a few years now, the global media community has acknowledged the Philippines among the most dangerous places for journalists. In the past two years, our country has been second only to Iraq in the number of media killings. Philippine journalists have fought hard to roll back the tide of violence. Today, however, the Philippine press faces its strongest challenge.
In declaring a "state of national emergency," President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo made media among her main targets. She and senior aides warned of government takeover of media facilities considered friendly to the political opposition.
Police have already raided the offices of the Daily Tribune, a national daily. Armed men in civilian clothes have gone around the offices of Abante, the country's biggest tabloid. Police had earlier arrested Randy David, a columnist of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, holding the award-winning journalist and sociologist for five hours prosecutors said there was no ground to charge him with any crime.
The government deployed troops to the compounds of ABS-CBN 2 and GMA 7, the country's largest television networks. The government's claim was
that the soldiers were protecting these stations from a potential takeover by destabilizers.
Police have also declared that they would not hesitate to takeover media entities found "aiding" the administration's enemies. The police also said they would soon release "standards" or guidelines that journalists must follow and that investigators and prosecutors were monitoring the news.
By the government's definition, providing aid to Mrs. Arroyo's enemies includes interviewing opposition parties. In simple terms, the administration wants media to present only the side of the embattled government, using force and coercion to bend journalists to its wishes.
Filipinos, journalists included, fought a long, hard battle to regain democracy after two decades of tyranny. That Mrs. Arroyo timed this crackdown on civil liberties with the anniversary of the Marcos dictatorship's fall only highlights her break with the democratic aspirations of Filipinos. Even as she warns enemies of feeling the full force of the law, Mrs. Arroyo flaunts constitutional guarantees to free speech and expression and press freedom.
Leaders of Philippine society have spoken out against the government's iron-hand tactics. The Philippine journalism community has also moved fast to unite against this grand assault on press freedom. Today, (Sunday, Feb. 26), the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines will lead various organizations and individual journalists in protesting the crackdown on media. The Philippine media community intends to send Mrs. Arroyo a strong message: We will not go gently into the night.
We call on all our colleagues in print, broadcast and digital journalism worldwide to support Philippine media in this dark hour. Please add your voice to our protest. Let us collectively condemn the crackdown on Philippine media and remind Mrs. Arroyo that no country can be free to prosper if its media is silenced and cowed.
You can send protest letters to the government through the Office of the Press Secretary at osec@ops.gov.ph, with facsimile number (632) 735-6167 or deliver these to the nearest Philippine embassy and consulate. You can send solidarity messages to the NUJP through its email address, nujphil@gmail.com or post this on our website, www.nujp.org. National Union of Journalists of the Philippines
Tribune Publisher: We will not be cowed.
From PCIJ
DAILY Tribune publisher Ninez Cacho-Olivarez wrote this after police raided the Tribune office today. The publisher’s note will appear in the paper’s Feb. 26 issue.
"Martial law
Publisher’s Note
President Arroyo and her aides may choose to call it a Declaration of the State of Emergency, but the stench of Martial Law has pervaded the entire country.
For what else can one call a warrantless raid of The Daily Tribune at an ungodly hour of 12:45 a.m. Saturday, where armed and uniformed policemen swooped down on the newspaper offices and raided these offices, without a search warrant and even filching some papers without even a witness present, then ordering the padlocking of the offices and then having at least three policemen guarding the area, claiming they were doing so to “ensure that nothing gets lost.”
At the same time, another police operation was ongoing, almost simultaneously, raiding the printing press with the policemen demanding to know from the night shift where our distribution centers were, and confiscating the last bundle which was to be picked up by a news dealer.
Later, on questioning the policemen why they were in the premises, the reply was that they were ordered to secure the area which is a “possible source of destabilization.”
Then came the Philippine National Police chief Director General, Arturo Lomibao, telling the media that the Tribune has been taken over temporarily and that the administration is mulling the supervision of the editorial content of the paper since the Tribune may be conspiring with the opposition to bring down the regime of Gloria Arroyo.
It was also said the Tribune will be made to submit to the police authorities its final copy for approval. The regime is also reportedly thinking of taking over the operations of the newspaper and have the government publish it.
As this is being written, another phalanx of policemen has been deployed to the printing press offices, waiting for the Tribune to roll to press, with the clear intention to stop its printing.
And all this is claimed by the Palace to be constitutional and to quote the presidential legal counsel, Eduardo Nachura, the declaration of emergency rule by Mrs. Arroyo is precisely done to safeguard our freedoms and democracy.
And despite the fact of the raid and the probable arrest of the publisher, the Palace insists that this has not occurred and that it has no plans of controlling the paper.
They call a government takeover of a newspaper, a private enterprise, in which any government has no business poking its hand, critical or not.
The Constitution says no law, which means no law — whether by Congress or a dictatorial executive with her declarations — can be enacted abridging the freedom of the press. This also means that government is not vested with the right or authority to exercise prior restraint on the press.
The acts against the press hardly enhance the people’s freedoms and democracy. It in fact ensures the suppression of these freedoms.
Gloria and her aides don’t have any respect for the constitutional freedoms of a people and especially of the press that is critical of the Gloria Arroyo regime.
Her emergency declaration is done for only one purpose: Gloria’s political survival. She can no longer take criticisms. She wants control of the press to ensure that the dirt that sticks to her and her government will be hidden.
She does not care about the rule of law, or the Constitution, or the freedoms of a people.
All she cares for is her political survival.
Charges will be manufactured, as evidence will be manufactured, to jail those who defy her.
The Tribune will continue defying her. We will not be cowed.
She can order the closure of the Tribune, but we will not close down the Tribune in fear of her.
We were not cowed during the martial law years. We will not be cowed today."
DAILY Tribune publisher Ninez Cacho-Olivarez wrote this after police raided the Tribune office today. The publisher’s note will appear in the paper’s Feb. 26 issue.
"Martial law
Publisher’s Note
President Arroyo and her aides may choose to call it a Declaration of the State of Emergency, but the stench of Martial Law has pervaded the entire country.
For what else can one call a warrantless raid of The Daily Tribune at an ungodly hour of 12:45 a.m. Saturday, where armed and uniformed policemen swooped down on the newspaper offices and raided these offices, without a search warrant and even filching some papers without even a witness present, then ordering the padlocking of the offices and then having at least three policemen guarding the area, claiming they were doing so to “ensure that nothing gets lost.”
At the same time, another police operation was ongoing, almost simultaneously, raiding the printing press with the policemen demanding to know from the night shift where our distribution centers were, and confiscating the last bundle which was to be picked up by a news dealer.
Later, on questioning the policemen why they were in the premises, the reply was that they were ordered to secure the area which is a “possible source of destabilization.”
Then came the Philippine National Police chief Director General, Arturo Lomibao, telling the media that the Tribune has been taken over temporarily and that the administration is mulling the supervision of the editorial content of the paper since the Tribune may be conspiring with the opposition to bring down the regime of Gloria Arroyo.
It was also said the Tribune will be made to submit to the police authorities its final copy for approval. The regime is also reportedly thinking of taking over the operations of the newspaper and have the government publish it.
As this is being written, another phalanx of policemen has been deployed to the printing press offices, waiting for the Tribune to roll to press, with the clear intention to stop its printing.
And all this is claimed by the Palace to be constitutional and to quote the presidential legal counsel, Eduardo Nachura, the declaration of emergency rule by Mrs. Arroyo is precisely done to safeguard our freedoms and democracy.
And despite the fact of the raid and the probable arrest of the publisher, the Palace insists that this has not occurred and that it has no plans of controlling the paper.
They call a government takeover of a newspaper, a private enterprise, in which any government has no business poking its hand, critical or not.
The Constitution says no law, which means no law — whether by Congress or a dictatorial executive with her declarations — can be enacted abridging the freedom of the press. This also means that government is not vested with the right or authority to exercise prior restraint on the press.
The acts against the press hardly enhance the people’s freedoms and democracy. It in fact ensures the suppression of these freedoms.
Gloria and her aides don’t have any respect for the constitutional freedoms of a people and especially of the press that is critical of the Gloria Arroyo regime.
Her emergency declaration is done for only one purpose: Gloria’s political survival. She can no longer take criticisms. She wants control of the press to ensure that the dirt that sticks to her and her government will be hidden.
She does not care about the rule of law, or the Constitution, or the freedoms of a people.
All she cares for is her political survival.
Charges will be manufactured, as evidence will be manufactured, to jail those who defy her.
The Tribune will continue defying her. We will not be cowed.
She can order the closure of the Tribune, but we will not close down the Tribune in fear of her.
We were not cowed during the martial law years. We will not be cowed today."
CHR: THERE IS STILL NO MARTIAL LAW.
From a Manila Times report.
A certain Ed Diansuy, of the Commission on Human Rights, said the privilege of the writ for habeas corpus and the rights of freedom of assembly, speech and information can still be enjoyed by the citizens.
"There is still no martial law. The government is only controlling the people," he said.
From a Manila Times report.
A certain Ed Diansuy, of the Commission on Human Rights, said the privilege of the writ for habeas corpus and the rights of freedom of assembly, speech and information can still be enjoyed by the citizens.
"There is still no martial law. The government is only controlling the people," he said.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Cong. Beltran arrested
Partylist Congressman Crispin Beltran, his wife and five other companions were arrested this afternoon by policemen on the strength of a warrant of arrest issued in 1985 rebellion case. His lawyer Romeo Capulong questioned his arrest in this INQ&.net report.
Partylist Congressman Crispin Beltran, his wife and five other companions were arrested this afternoon by policemen on the strength of a warrant of arrest issued in 1985 rebellion case. His lawyer Romeo Capulong questioned his arrest in this INQ&.net report.
What is the Speaker thinking?
I sent an SMS to a former high school friend who is now a congressman, about my opinion that Congress has to step in to review Proc. No. 1017, because it is a declaration of martial law disguised as another thing. Guess what? He replied and said we're better off running after the financiers of the destabilizers, and besides he thinks we have too much freedom. Geez, I wonder if the Speaker is thinking the same way.
Billy Esposo: A Philippine civil war is now a real possibility
From INQ7.net. My own sources have confirmed Billy Esposo's premises in his analysis. I just hope he missed out something for, God forbid, a civil war is not what we need.
Daily Tribune office raided
"What's this martial law?", Ninez Cacho Oilvares, the editor of the Daily Tribune, asked as the offices of the Daily Tribune, a Manila daily, was raided by the police early morning today. See full story here. .
Proc. No. 1017 copy pasted from Proc. No. 1081
Paul Santos in his blog points out that the text of the original Marcos Martial Law Proclamation, (Proc. No. 1081), and the recent Declaration of National Emergency (Proc. No. 1017) by Pres. Arroyo are the same text. He writes,
Proclamation No. 1017:
“NOW, THEREFORE, I Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Republic of the Philippines and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested upon me by Section 18, Article 7 of the Philippine Constitution which states that: “ The President…whenever it becomes necessary,…may call out (the) armed forces to prevent or suppress…rebellion…, “ and in my capacity as their Commander-in-Chief, do hereby command the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence as well any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction; and as provided in Section 17, Article 12 of the Constitution do hereby declare a State of National Emergency.”
Now, Proclamation No. 1081:
“NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested upon me by Article VII, Section 10, Paragraph (’2) of the Constitution, do hereby place the entire Philippines as defined in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution under martial law and, in my capacity as their commander-in-chief, do hereby command the armed forces of the Philippines, to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence as well as any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the laws and decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction.”
As I stated earlier, Proc. No. 1017 is a declaration of Martial Law disguised as a declaration of National Emergency. This is not an accident. Proc. No. 1017 was copy pasted from Proc. No. 1081 because the true intent is to declare martial law and mask it as declaration of national emergency. What is the implication? Any military action that was justified in 1972 by Proc. No. 1081, if done today may be justified by Proc. No. 1017.
God bless us all!
Proclamation No. 1017:
“NOW, THEREFORE, I Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Republic of the Philippines and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested upon me by Section 18, Article 7 of the Philippine Constitution which states that: “ The President…whenever it becomes necessary,…may call out (the) armed forces to prevent or suppress…rebellion…, “ and in my capacity as their Commander-in-Chief, do hereby command the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence as well any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction; and as provided in Section 17, Article 12 of the Constitution do hereby declare a State of National Emergency.”
Now, Proclamation No. 1081:
“NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested upon me by Article VII, Section 10, Paragraph (’2) of the Constitution, do hereby place the entire Philippines as defined in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution under martial law and, in my capacity as their commander-in-chief, do hereby command the armed forces of the Philippines, to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence as well as any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the laws and decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction.”
As I stated earlier, Proc. No. 1017 is a declaration of Martial Law disguised as a declaration of National Emergency. This is not an accident. Proc. No. 1017 was copy pasted from Proc. No. 1081 because the true intent is to declare martial law and mask it as declaration of national emergency. What is the implication? Any military action that was justified in 1972 by Proc. No. 1081, if done today may be justified by Proc. No. 1017.
God bless us all!
Friday, February 24, 2006
FREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP URGES RECALL OF PROC. NO. 1017
The following is the statement of Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) on Proc. No. 1017:
The Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) strongly condemns Proclamation 1017 declaring a state of national emergency. Proclamation 1017 is a license given to the military and police to use against whosoever they perceive to be enemies; it silences all forms of criticism, including media reporting.
Through Proclamation 1017, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has arrogated unto herself the power to promulgate decrees, orders and regulations (last paragraph), not different, in effect, from Amendment No. 6, which Marcos used to legislate:
“Whenever in the judgment of the President, there exists a grave emergency or a threat or imminence thereof, … he may, in order to meet the emergency, issue the necessary decrees, orders or letters of instructions, which shall form part of the law of the land.”
In Proclamation 1017, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo alleges a “conspiracy” between “elements in the political opposition,” “extreme left,” and “extreme right,” fueled by “certain segments of the national media” to “bring down the duly constituted Government elected in May 2004.” (1st and 3rd Whereas Clauses) All who are or may be identified as belonging to the political opposition, extreme left, extreme right and the national media are targets.
Proclamation 1017 is arbitrary; it contains no clear directives, standards or guidelines; it sets no time frame for the duration of the emergency. Even worse, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s public announcement categorically cedes to the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police the power to do whatever needs to be done as a consequence of this Proclamation, without limit or accountability.
There is neither factual nor legal basis for the declaration of a national emergency. In her public statement announcing Proclamation 1017, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo herself over nationwide television announced that she was “in control” of the situation and that threats against her government had already been neutralized and quelled. There is, therefore, no real emergency to speak of. In addition, if all Gloria Macapagal Arroyo wants to do is to prosecute those who violate the law, there are adequate laws and processes to investigate and prosecute them.
Proclamation 1017 cites two constitutional provisions as its legal basis: the commander-in-chief provision (Art. VII, Sec. 18) and the emergency powers provision (Art. XII, Sec. 17).
Under Section 18, the only grounds to call out the Armed Forces are lawless violence, invasion or rebellion; while the only grounds to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or to declare martial law are invasion or rebellion. Not one of these grounds exists. A so-called “conspiracy to bring down” Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is not — in and of itself — lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
While Art. XII, Sec. 17 allows the President to declare a state of national emergency (which may include a “military national emergency”), the only power granted the State under this provision is to “temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest.” This power may only be exercised during the emergency and under reasonable terms.
By “saving democracy,” Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has just destroyed it. FLAG calls on Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to withdraw her Proclamation.
SGD. Jose Manuel I. Diokno
Chairman FLAG
The Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) strongly condemns Proclamation 1017 declaring a state of national emergency. Proclamation 1017 is a license given to the military and police to use against whosoever they perceive to be enemies; it silences all forms of criticism, including media reporting.
Through Proclamation 1017, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has arrogated unto herself the power to promulgate decrees, orders and regulations (last paragraph), not different, in effect, from Amendment No. 6, which Marcos used to legislate:
“Whenever in the judgment of the President, there exists a grave emergency or a threat or imminence thereof, … he may, in order to meet the emergency, issue the necessary decrees, orders or letters of instructions, which shall form part of the law of the land.”
In Proclamation 1017, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo alleges a “conspiracy” between “elements in the political opposition,” “extreme left,” and “extreme right,” fueled by “certain segments of the national media” to “bring down the duly constituted Government elected in May 2004.” (1st and 3rd Whereas Clauses) All who are or may be identified as belonging to the political opposition, extreme left, extreme right and the national media are targets.
Proclamation 1017 is arbitrary; it contains no clear directives, standards or guidelines; it sets no time frame for the duration of the emergency. Even worse, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s public announcement categorically cedes to the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police the power to do whatever needs to be done as a consequence of this Proclamation, without limit or accountability.
There is neither factual nor legal basis for the declaration of a national emergency. In her public statement announcing Proclamation 1017, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo herself over nationwide television announced that she was “in control” of the situation and that threats against her government had already been neutralized and quelled. There is, therefore, no real emergency to speak of. In addition, if all Gloria Macapagal Arroyo wants to do is to prosecute those who violate the law, there are adequate laws and processes to investigate and prosecute them.
Proclamation 1017 cites two constitutional provisions as its legal basis: the commander-in-chief provision (Art. VII, Sec. 18) and the emergency powers provision (Art. XII, Sec. 17).
Under Section 18, the only grounds to call out the Armed Forces are lawless violence, invasion or rebellion; while the only grounds to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or to declare martial law are invasion or rebellion. Not one of these grounds exists. A so-called “conspiracy to bring down” Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is not — in and of itself — lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
While Art. XII, Sec. 17 allows the President to declare a state of national emergency (which may include a “military national emergency”), the only power granted the State under this provision is to “temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest.” This power may only be exercised during the emergency and under reasonable terms.
By “saving democracy,” Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has just destroyed it. FLAG calls on Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to withdraw her Proclamation.
SGD. Jose Manuel I. Diokno
Chairman FLAG
Comment: Proc. No. 1017 puts ultimate powers on the military on matters of law and order
Reading the text of the Proc. No. 1017, I am of the opinion that this gives ultimate powers on the military to arrest individuals caught committing acts of lawless violence insurrection or rebellion. The wording of the Proclamation is precise. It is ordering the AFP to maintain law and order through out the entire country and enforce obedience to all the laws decrees and orders of the President. In a situation where, for example, Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay defies the order not to continue on his planned mass action, the military can pick him up and put him in jail. Mayor Binay cannot argue that since he is Mayor of Makati, he has the jurisdiction over the peace and order over his city, because Proc. No. 1017 places the ultimate authority to maintain law and order over the military. If this is not martial law, I do not know what martial law is.
Randy David and Argee Guevarra arrested
Prof. Randy David of the UP Sociology Department and Atty. Argee Guevarra, Businessworld columnist, were arrested by the police on the strength of Proc. !017 a while back. The arrest was aired on national TV. Sometime at 9:30 this morning I overheard also on TV Prof. David's fiery words urging the patriotic soliders to come out and join them in EDSA to effect a peaceful change of government.
Comment: Is Proc. 1017 Martial Law?
I listened as Press Sec. Ignacio Bunye read the text of the Proc. 1017, which placed the Phlippines under a State of Emergency. I am curious that one line in the text says that the President is ordering the Armed Forces of teh Philippines to maintain peace and order over the entire country. Does this mean that the civilian government is unable to maintain peace and order on its own?
This is curious, because Fr. Joaquin Bernas in his textbook on constitutional law points to a type of martial law "which has application when the military arm does not supercede civil authority but is called upon to aid in the execution of its civil functions." (See Joaquin Bernas, A Commentary of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines p. 215, 1988 edition). According to Fr. Bernas this is the martial law that is covered by the text of the Sec. 18 Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, which calls for congressional review of the declaration by the President. The wording of Proc. 1017 precisely contemplates that situation where the President is calling upon the military to maintain the peace and order in the entire country. Does this mean civilan authority is no longer functioning? If so, then Section 18 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution should be operative.
Section 18 Article VII states as follows,
"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.
"The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.
"The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
"A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
"The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion.
"During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released."
From the above, the President should within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress.
Thereafter, 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.
Finally, 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.
Let's see how the legal luminaries react.
A copy of Proc. 1017 may be found here. Link courtesy of Blackboard
This is curious, because Fr. Joaquin Bernas in his textbook on constitutional law points to a type of martial law "which has application when the military arm does not supercede civil authority but is called upon to aid in the execution of its civil functions." (See Joaquin Bernas, A Commentary of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines p. 215, 1988 edition). According to Fr. Bernas this is the martial law that is covered by the text of the Sec. 18 Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, which calls for congressional review of the declaration by the President. The wording of Proc. 1017 precisely contemplates that situation where the President is calling upon the military to maintain the peace and order in the entire country. Does this mean civilan authority is no longer functioning? If so, then Section 18 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution should be operative.
Section 18 Article VII states as follows,
"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.
"The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.
"The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
"A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
"The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion.
"During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released."
From the above, the President should within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress.
Thereafter, 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.
Finally, 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.
Let's see how the legal luminaries react.
A copy of Proc. 1017 may be found here. Link courtesy of Blackboard
GMA declares a State of National Emergency
Pres. Arroyo went on air shortly before noon to declare a "State of National Emergency". She confirmed that there was a coup attempt, but claims she has full control of the situation. The text of her speech is found here.
EDSA People Power Monument declared no rally zone
ABS-CBN reports that the military has declared that the EDSA People Power Monument has been declared a no rally zone. Video footages also showed that soldiers have been posted on the monument.
Gen . Senga on ABS-CBN interview: plotters planned to join EDSA rally
In an interview with Ces Drilon, Gen. Senga said that Gen. Danny Lim and his troops planned to join the protest rally at EDSA and declare withdrawal of support from the government. He further said that there was no attempt to grab power, but a mere withdrawal of support. He said there was no overt action by Gen. Danny Lim's and his troops. Gen. Senga also said that Gen. Danny Lim is under custody of the marine brigade. Gen. Senga, however, did not give a categorical answer on the question on whether the coup is over. He said the army is just monitoring the situation.
AFP corrects announcement on Col. Querubin
Over at ABS-CBN TV, Gus Abelgas reports that the AFP has corrected the anouncment that Col. Querubin has been relieved from his post. Apparently, Col. Querubin has not been relieved.
Senga relieves Gen. Danilo Lim and Col. Querubin
AM radio reports said that AFP Chief of Staff Generoso Senga relieved Gen. Danilo Lim, head of the Scout Rangers Regimen based in San Miguel, Bulacan, and Col. Querubin from their posts. Apparenty, earlier the two have declared their withdrawal of support to the government.
Coup d'etat vs. GMA
GMA 7 reports at this moment that there are troops found in Bocaue, Bulacan exit in the North Expressway. GMA 7, however, is not certain whether the troops are loyalists or reformists.
I woke up this morning preparing to write a major pleading for a client, but fate has different plans today. Classes for all levels have been suspended as a coup d'etat against the Arroyo Administration has been discovered. Malacanang security has been highthened. So far, only Army chief Lieutenant General Hermogenes Esperon has made public announcements about the coup. He claims that it has already been thwarted and two senior military officials have been arrested.
Have post. Will blog. God bless us all!
I woke up this morning preparing to write a major pleading for a client, but fate has different plans today. Classes for all levels have been suspended as a coup d'etat against the Arroyo Administration has been discovered. Malacanang security has been highthened. So far, only Army chief Lieutenant General Hermogenes Esperon has made public announcements about the coup. He claims that it has already been thwarted and two senior military officials have been arrested.
Have post. Will blog. God bless us all!
Friday, February 17, 2006
Appointments Then and Now
Fr. Jose Burgos, writing anonymously, in Manila 27 June 1864, said:
“If in our days we do not see more Filipinos outstanding in learning,
let this not be attributed to their character nor to their nature
more to the influence of the climate nor much less that of the race,
but rather to the discouragement which for some years now has taken
possession of the youth, because of the almost complete lack of any
incentive. For as a matter of fact, what young man will still make
efforts to excel in the knowledge of law or of theology, if he does
not see in the future anything but obscurity and indifference? What
Filipino will even aspire to be learned, will consecrate efforts to
this purpose, seeing that his most noble aspirations wither away
under the destructive influence of scorn and neglect, and knowing
that honorable and lucrative offices are for him forbidden fruit?”*
Doesn’t Fr. Burgos sound like he is speaking about the Ateneo law classmates of You-Know-Who and the Sigma Rhoans in government? When government positions are dispensed only to the patrons of the powers-that-be, without regard to ability and competence, it is no wonder why a million Filipinos opted out of this country last year. To think that as far back as 1864, Fr. Jose Burgos had complained about this to the Spanish authorities. When would we ever learn?
*From the Manifesto Addressed to the Noble Spanish Nation by the Loyal
Filipinos Defending their Honor and Loyalty Gravely Wounded by the
Madrid Newspaper, La Verdad translated by Fr. John Schumacher, S. J.
as appearing in Father Jose Burgos: a documentary history with
Spanish documents and their translation, ADMU Press c1999.
Check out the Gomburza Trial on the sidebar.
“If in our days we do not see more Filipinos outstanding in learning,
let this not be attributed to their character nor to their nature
more to the influence of the climate nor much less that of the race,
but rather to the discouragement which for some years now has taken
possession of the youth, because of the almost complete lack of any
incentive. For as a matter of fact, what young man will still make
efforts to excel in the knowledge of law or of theology, if he does
not see in the future anything but obscurity and indifference? What
Filipino will even aspire to be learned, will consecrate efforts to
this purpose, seeing that his most noble aspirations wither away
under the destructive influence of scorn and neglect, and knowing
that honorable and lucrative offices are for him forbidden fruit?”*
Doesn’t Fr. Burgos sound like he is speaking about the Ateneo law classmates of You-Know-Who and the Sigma Rhoans in government? When government positions are dispensed only to the patrons of the powers-that-be, without regard to ability and competence, it is no wonder why a million Filipinos opted out of this country last year. To think that as far back as 1864, Fr. Jose Burgos had complained about this to the Spanish authorities. When would we ever learn?
*From the Manifesto Addressed to the Noble Spanish Nation by the Loyal
Filipinos Defending their Honor and Loyalty Gravely Wounded by the
Madrid Newspaper, La Verdad translated by Fr. John Schumacher, S. J.
as appearing in Father Jose Burgos: a documentary history with
Spanish documents and their translation, ADMU Press c1999.
Check out the Gomburza Trial on the sidebar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)