Home | To bottom

SC upholds PP1017

Arrests, dispersals, raids illegal

BAGUIO CITY (May 4) — The Supreme Court declared by an 11-3 decision the constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation 1017 as it constitutes a call by Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to prevent and suppress lawless violence.

The decision released at 4:15 P.M. on May 3, however, clarified that provisions of the PP 1017 commanding the AFP to enforce laws not related to lawless violence, as well as decrees promulgated by the president are declared unconstitutional.

SC Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez declared in the 78-page decision that the provision for the declaration of national emergency under Sec. 17, Art VII of the constitution is constitutional. It pointed out however “it does not authorize the President to take over privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest without prior legislation.”

Militant groups who filed a petition against PP1017 scored a victory against respondents GMA and her officials. Especifically, the arrest of Randolf David and Ronald Llamas; the dispersals of the KMU during rallies; and the warrantless search of The Tribune were acts declared unconstitutional.

The said justices also decided that G.O. No. 5 is constitutional since it provides standards which the AFP and the PNP should implement PP 1017 especially those necessary and appropriate actions and measures to suppress and prevent lawless violence while reason Congress has not yet defined acts of terrorism. The House of Representatives has come up with an anti-terrorism legislation while the Senate has yet to pass its own version of the law.

Atty. Ismael Khan, SC spokesperson, reiterated in a press conference that the PP1017 and related issuances are constitutional provided they are for the prevention of lawless violence, rebellion, invasion and not violating BP 880, or the Public Assembly Act.

The three Justices who voted against PP1017 are Dante Tinga, Renato Corona, and Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez.

On the other hand, one of seven petitioners against the state of emergency policy, Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), may file a motion for the total declaration of PP1017’s unconstitutionality, while administration lawyers are yet to decide if they will file a motion for reconsideration on the SC ruling.

KMU Chief Legal Counsel Remigio Saladero said it would be safer if the presidential proclamation is declared unconstitutional. Otherwise, he said, the tendency to violate constitutional rights will always be there.

Meanwhile, in an emailed statement, Prof. Jose Ma. Sison, chief political consultant of the National Democratic Movement said that the SC has knocked down the most obvious unconstitutional and unlawful aspects of PP1017 but its oppressive character and consequences of the proclamation still weigh heavily on the Batasan 6 and other accused of an involvement in a coup alliance between communists and anti-Arroyo military officers.

“PP1017 was based on a big lie that the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the New People’s Army (NPA) had forged an alliance with anti-Arroyo sections of the AFP to carry out a coup-d’etat on February 24,” Sison said.

According to Sison, “Arroyo’s armed minions and her department of injustice are hell-bent on persecuting the most articulate and most militant opposition leaders subjecting them to fabricated charges of rebellion and other extremely anomalous impositions.”

“They retain the same propensity for telling lies to justify the use of force in suppressing the democratic rights of the people,” Sison added. # Arthur L. Allad-iw for NORDIS

Post your comments, reactions to this article

Home | Back to top