Home > Op-ed | To bottom

Supreme Court’s decision favor bill of rights

Could the cool air weather in Baguio influence the Justices of the Supreme Court decisions to trash Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s anti-Bill of Right policies? Or can the members of the Honorable Court be depended upon by the people to protect their rights against excesses by those in power?

The Supreme Court Justices recently declared as unconstitutional Executive Order 464. The said order prohibits the appearance of the Executive Department, military and police officials to any congressional hearing without GMA’s go signal. But latest SC decision upheld Congress right to know and the people’s right to take part in government affairs.

The case questioning the constitutionality of EO 464 is noble. Lawmakers asserted EO 464 clipped their constitutional function to summon officials in aid of legislation. I had been personally predicting that the SC Justices would decide in favor of EO 464. Why? First, there is the trend by the present adminstration of setting aside the rights of the people. Second, the SC is dominated by GMA appointees – I could count nine from the 15 justices. These GMA appointees, I had been expecting, would vote based on “utang na loob” – in favor of the order. But I was wrong, totally wrong. Proving myself wrong, I salute these Justices for voting that the EO 464 is unsconstitutional. There is, however, another case the Justices should decide the same – the declaration of the unconstitutionality of Presidential Proclamation 1017. With the latest SC decision on EO 464, I believe they can do the same to PP 1017. And I would salute them more for that.

Another decision that earn my admiration is when they declared GMA’s policy unconstitutional, called calibrated preemptive response (CPR). CPR institutionalized military and police brutality as they can always break up rallies. They are no longer the protector of the people but protector of GMA’s interests. The case was brought by militant organizations led by Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) when they were dispersed by the police near Mendiola in Manila.

The SC claimed that this policy should be struck down as a darkness that shroud freedom. It was used by the police to justify abuse. I view CPR however as a policy that disregards the Constitution’s Bill of Rights – like the freedom of expression, of the press, of speech, and to peaceably assemble, among others. It justifies attrocities by the state’s exercise of its police power. Such excesses by the state of its police power is actually the reason why we have the Bill of Rights – to clip the state from its abuses. This is the importance of the Bill of Rights as in fact a law is not required for its implementation as the Bill of Rights are generally self-executory.

Despite the declaration of CPR as unconstitutional however, the court declared that Batasang Pambansa 880 is legal. BP 880 issued by the Marcos administration mandates military and police to observe maximum tolerance during public assembly or dispersal operations. However, it is also BP 880 that requires permit in the exercise of these freedoms. It is the acquisition of the permit that is being used by the government in order to fail the exercise of these freedoms.

I still believe that BP 880 institutionalize the curtailment of the said freedoms. Since it contradicts the Bill of Rights, it should be declared as unconstitutional. Anyway even without BP 880, the police and military can still utilize the ‘clear and present danger rule’ to intervene in any assembly, as long as the purpose of the intervention is to protect the people’s rights but not to oppress the people. #

Post your comments, reactions to this article

Home > Op-ed | Back to top