Challenging Proclamation 427

E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Challenging Proclamation 427
Sunday, 08 10, 2003

There are as many grounds to question the constitutionality and validity of Proclamation 427, declaring the entire nation under a state of rebellion as there are oppositors to it. Oppositors to this legal mongrel, as Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile describes it, or those who see something sinister to its issuance – remember, one of the grounds for the declaration of martial law is the existence of rebellion – will not rest until this presidential issuance is buried to oblivion.

President Arroyo unleashed this mongrel once in May 2001, in response to the “attack” on the Palace by the forces (allegedly) of Ronald Lumbao, and she got lucky before the Supreme Court, which did not even give her a rap on the knuckle. The petitions questioning the constitutionality of the then Proclamation 38 declaring the National Capital Region under a state of rebellion were rendered moot and academic by the withdrawal of the effects of the proclamation even before the Supreme Court could decide the cases.

This time, Malacañang is testing the limits from the public and the courts’ response. Despite the huge outcry against the proclamation’s continued effectivity, Malacañang just would not budge. It is using Proclamation 427 as a device to ferret out civilian components – which to me are mere phantoms in the minds of the power-driven in Malacañang – of the group of soldiers who occupied the Oakwood Hotel and force Sen. Gregorio Honasan to go underground once again, thereby decimating the aboveground opposition.

Meanwhile, in its pre-occupation to prop up its own survival using a monster of its creation in the proclamation, Malacañang continues to be arrogantly unmindful of the surfeit of petitions already filed with the Supreme Court.

A mongrel it has become indeed, for simply by its issuance the proclamation has usurped the functions of constitutional bodies, specifically the legislature.

Concerned with their own survival in a state of de facto martial law, which they cannot possibly tame unlike if it were the martial law under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, the members of the opposition in the House of Representatives have seen it fit to challenge Proclamation 427.

In a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to nullify Proclamation 427, the representatives led by Rolex Suplico of Iloilo are raising before the Supreme Court questions of constitutional significance which affect their powers and duties as members of Congress. Invoking the exercise of judicial review at the earliest opportunity, Suplico, et al. note the fact that while President Arroyo had declared on Aug. 2, 2003 that the coup d’ etat – as she termed it – was over, the state of rebellion remains.
As far as Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution is concerned, all that the President could do are: (1) call out the Armed Forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion; (2) suspend the writ of habeas corpus; or (3) place the Philippines or a part thereof under martial law – no more no less.

Suplico, et al. start from the premise that the power of the President under Section 18, Article VII is graduated. As Commander-in-Chief, the President can, initially, can upon the military to suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. The calling out of the Armed Forces is a separate and distinct power of the President, compared to the two other supreme emergency powers of suspending the writ of habeas corpus and declaring a state of martial law. They contend that there is no such thing as presidential power to declare the whole Philippines or a portion of its territory under a state of rebellion on the basis of Section 18, Article VII, which President Arroyo invoked in issuing Proclamation 427.

The power to call out the Armed Forces is admittedly a presidential power that can be exercised with the broadest discretion. The declaration of a state of rebellion, however, is a superfluity and amounts to a usurpation of the power of Congress in light of Section 23(2), Article VI of the Constitution which reads: “In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.

Indeed, the power to declare the existence of a state of rebellion falls within the emergency powers of the President which only Congress could, by law, authorize the President to declare, but only for a limited period and subject to the restrictions prescribed by Congress. Only after a determination by Congress can it authorize, by law, the President to declare the country under a state of rebellion. There is a precedent to this: Congress enacted Republic Act 6826 empowering then President Aquino to deal with the national emergency related to the 1989 coup attempt.

Suplico, et al. assert that by issuing Proclamation 427, absent a prior determination by Congress and its enactment of the appropriate law, President Arroyo usurped a power lodged in Congress under Section 23(2), Article VI. Furthermore, by declaring the whole country under a state of rebellion, which effects, objectives and manner of implementation appear to be no different from a declaration of martial law, President Arroyo has effectively thwarted legislative intervention to the extent that Congress, pursuant to Section 18, Article VII, may revoke any proclamation of martial law. By issuing Proclamation 427, President Arroyo has placed herself beyond the checking and limiting powers of Congress.

We are curious about how the Supreme Court will seize the collar of this mangy mongrel.


For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2003