Home > Op-ed | To bottom

PP1017 revisited

Some parties find it laudable that the Supreme Court declared Proclamation 1017 as partly constitutional at the same time in part unconstitutional.

Declared constitutional is that part of PP1017 that gives the President the right to call the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to quell lawless violence, invasion and rebellion; and to the declare a state of national emergency; provided that the taking over of privately-owned public utilities or businesses is done with prior legislation.

General Order No. 5 was also declared constitutional except for the provision on acts of terrorism which also needs legislation of Congress.

However, acts done in the implementation of PP1017 are unconstitutional. Among such acts are warrantless arrest and search; prior restraint against media; rally dispersals and the takeover of a national daily.

Apparently the Supreme Court decision chose to maintain the status quo within the limits of what is perceived as legal under the Philippine Constitution.

Remember, it was by virtue of PP1017 that progressive legislators known as the Batasan 5 were arrested. By virtue of the SC decision the Makati judge dismissed the rebellion charges against them. Now they are free, yet no less than the Secretary of the Department of Justice says that rebellion charges still await each of them.

The Batasan 5, are national dignitaries and may have a fighting chance against these ambiguities of the Law. How would it apply to ordinary workers and peasants in the country side whose issues are only heard by the powers that be when they organize and speak as a group?

Masked daily in the news are stories of the right to life and the freedom of expression being trampled on, especially in the ranks of ordinary activists among workers, farm tenants and laborers in the name of implementing these so-called anti-rebellion laws. Where is that so-called equality in the eyes of the law? #

Post your comments, reactions to this article

Home > Op-ed | Back to top