CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS
MANILA, NOVEMBER 18, 2011 (TRIBUNE) By Mario J.
Mallari, Charlie V. Manalo and Gil Bugaoisan - AFP to obey Noy's
orders in SC ruling.
An official of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) said that the
military will follow the chain of command and will obey the orders of President
Aquino, commander in chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, on what steps
to take following the Supreme Court's ruling on the government's Motion for
Reconsideration over the issuance of the temporary restraining (TRO) order from
the high court.
Aquino reportedly has no plans of heeding the SC's TRO that allows former
president, Rep. Gloria Arroyo, to travel, while the Phlippine Constitution
Association (Philconsa) warned the incumbent administration of a constitutional
crisis if Aquino and his alter-ego, Justice Chief Leila de Lima continue to defy
the high court's ruling.
While the military claimed that it will follow whatever orders are given by
its commander in chief regarding this legal battle between the administration
and the high court, the AFP also downplayed the possibility of military unrest
amid the alleged persecution of the former president by the Aquino government
despite admitting there may be some active officers still
"loyal" to their former commander in chief.
AFP Civil Relations Service (CRS) chief Maj. Gen. Eduardo del Rosario
stressed that the 125,000-strong military organization is professional and
will adhere to the chain of command amid fears of possible constitutional crisis
due to the Aquino government's refusal to allow Arroyo and her husband Jose
Miguel Arroyo to seek medical attention abroad.
"I think it (fears of constitutional crisis) is just exaggerated but
nevertheless the Armed Forces of the Philippines will simply follow the chain of
command," said Del Rosario.
According to Del Rosario, it is possible that some AFP officers are still
"loyal" to Arroyo, who served as commander in chief of all the armed forces for
nine years, on a personal level only and would not pose any problem.
"Maybe on the personal level, there may be some officers ( who are loyal to
Arroyo) but as a professional organization, we will follow the chain of
command," said Del Rosario.
"I think we have strengthened that stance of the AFP wherein the chain of
command must be strongly adhered to," added Del Rosario.
The AFP-CRS pointed out that even those who could be "loyal" to Arroyo are
expected to follow the chain of command.
"Of course, because there is no other choice. As professional officers of the
AFP, you follow the chain of command," said Del Rosario.
The country's foremost constitutionalists yesterday warned the Aquno
administration of a constitutional crisis should it continue to defy the TRO
allowing the former president to seek medical treatment abroad.
Through its president Manuel Lazaro, Philconsa issued a strong rebuke of the
actions of the DoJ and the Bureau of Immigration in preventing Arroyo and her
husband from boarding the aircraft that would have taken them to Singapore on
Tuesday night.
Philconsa is composed of legal luminaries and expert constitutionalists.
Founded by framers of the 1971 Constitution, the group also includes members of
the 1987 constitutional commission.
According to Philconsa, the refusal of Justice Secretary De Lima to honor the
TRO is also expected to trigger a constitutional crisis.
Philconsa cautioned government that willful defiance of a judicial order is
"not only contumacious but also dangerous to, destructive of the rule of law".
The group also warned that the DoJ and the BI can be held liable for
violating the "fundamental principle of separation of powers of the three
departments of our government."
"The reported resistance or disobedience of the officials of the Department
of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Immigration (BI) in refusing motu proprio to
honor, obey and implement the Supreme Court TRO allowing the Arroyo couple to
exercise their constitutional right to travel, embraced by the broader natural
right of freedom of movement, an important aspect of liberty and the essence of
our free society, may usher the beginning of the end of the elaborate system of
checks–and-balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various
departments of the government," Lazaro stated.
"The basic right to travel interfaces with other equally precious rights,
such as the right to life, the right to seek medical assistance abroad, the
right to choose his doctors and the right to exercise other rights related to
his privacy and personhood," said Lazaro.
"Hence, the constitutional right to travel cannot or may not be curtailed
until and unless there is a law passed by Congress impairing the right on
grounds of national security, public safety and public health," Lazaro stated.
The Philconsa also reminded De Lima that the DoJ has "no legislative power to
impose conditions to avail of the natural right to travel."
Paraphrasing the Associate Justice Jose Laurel who penned the decision on the
controversial Angara versus Electoral Commission case, Lazaro said that 'in
times of social disquietude or political excitement' or in cases of conflict on
the interpretations of the constitutional rights of the people the judicial
department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to
determine the proper and ultimate interpretations.
"As further stressed by the Supreme Court, the maintenance of public order
and the existence of the (State) itself, depend upon the enforcement of the
mandates of the courts and require prompt obedience to them, not only by private
citizens, but in a special manner by the Government officers who are
particularly charged with the knowledge of the law and with the duty of obeying
it," Lazaro said.
Lazaro also stressed that when the High Tribunal issued the TRO "effective
immediately and continuing until further orders from the Court," the DOJ
officials, who are mostly lawyers and who are also officers of the Court, are
expected to be the first to honor, obey and implement the Order of the Supreme
Court.
Aquino has made it clear that he has no plans of heeding the SC's TRO.
Communications Secretary Ricky Carandang said Aquino has entrusted the
government's legal strategy to De Lima in as far as the case of Mrs. Arroyo is
concerned as he insisted that the TRO cannot take effect until all legal
remedies has been exhausted and resolved by the High Tribunal.
And even if the TRO were already served, Carandang insisted that the Supreme
Court is obligated to hear all parties involved in Mrs. Arroyo's case before the
TRO can take effect.
Carandang said that since Aquino is already in Bali attending the Asean
Summit, De Lima has been tasked to carry out the government's legal strategy on
the case of Mrs. Arroyo. De Lima has maintained that the government cannot allow
Mrs. Arroyo to leave for medical treatment overseas until the SC resolves their
pleading seeking to reverse the TRO.
"I will leave that to the Justice Department, as far as I understand,
everybody is waiting for the Supreme Court to make a ruling, and I don't think
she should get any action until the court has had a chance to talk about it,"
Carandang said.
In a separate interview, De Lima said she has no intention of allowing Mrs.
Arroyo from leaving as she noted that Aquino himself has ordered his Cabinet to
take all possible steps to defend the position of the government in relation to
its decision to issue a watchlist order against the former president.
She said the President issued the directive Thursday morning when he met some
Cabinet secretaries at Villamor Airbase before leaving on a chartered flight for
Bali, Indonesia for the 19th Association Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) Summit.
"He told us to assess the situation and come up with an appropriate plan of
action, depending on the developments, we do have a pending motion for
reconsideration," Justice Secretary Leila de Lima told reporters.
"My directive to the Bureau of Immigration stays, that is to prevent or bar
the Arroyos from leaving," she added.
Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda meanwhile belittled warnings that
Aquino's refusal to allow Mrs. Arroyo from leaving for medical treatment abroad
can be the basis of filing an impeachment case against him and stressed that
this would not prosper.
" I don't think there is any reason for the—there's no actionable offense on
the part of the president. There's no impeachable offense on the part of the
president. I think that's just their way of getting into the discussion but
there's no impeachable offense. We don't believe that it will prosper.
"As far as we are concerned there is no impeachable offense," Lacierda said.
Lacierda also maintained that it is unlikely that Mrs. Aquino has any plans
of returning home to answer charges which the government would be filing against
her.
Lacierda also advised Mrs. Arroyo that instead of getting a high blood
pressure due to her frustrations in failing to take her flight, this "can be
obviated by just staying in the hospital, recuperating, and maybe perhaps wait
for the oral arguments on Tuesday."
TRIBUNE COMMENTARY
A clear show of dictatorship EDITORIAL
Whatever reasoning the Palace throws on its defying the temporary restraining
order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court (SC) on the travel ban against former
President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Arroyo, falls right back in its face and
cannot erase the fact that it is Malacaang violating the law, the constitutional
right of a Filipino citizen, even if the fact is disregarded that Mrs. Arroyo is
a former head of state, and more significantly disregarding the highest court of
the land.
Noynoys obsession to jail Mrs. Arroyo and her spouse Mike Arroyo has
transcended the bounds of reason and decency and is turning into a bigger battle
to uphold the supremacy of the SC in upholding the law, in turn creating a
battle against a new style of dictatorship.
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima was shown on television yesterday citing
non-sequiturs in defending her defiance of the TRO, insisting that the stay
order of the SC did not have a clear unanimity and that it was infirm, which she
says explains the Palaces intention to appeal it.
From any angle, however, even to a non-legal expert, the Palace had mocked
the court order. The consequence of this, according to the SC administrator and
spokesman Midas Marquez, is De Lima likely being cited for contempt that carries
a prison term. Her lawyers license may even be suspended, and worse, she can be
disbarred, should someone seek her disbarment.
The question that follows is whether De Lima acted on her own in defying the
court order or if she is acting on behalf of Noynoy, which can be proved, since
she had announced while rejecting the travel of Gloria, that she and Noynoy met
minutes earlier and had approved of her denial of travel. And this joint
decision makes the President an accessory to the willful travesty of justice.
The Palace, thus, had led Noynoy into his own trap when his spokesmen
reasoned that Noynoy delayed his trip to Bali, Indonesia where an Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) Summit is being held since this is clear proof
that he knew all the way that the TRO was violated even if he claims this was
not his order to have the SC ignore its decision.
It also proved that Noynoy and the whole Palace had knowledge of the
existence of the TRO, which flies right in the face of De Limas argument that
Mrs. Arroyo was not allowed to leave because she had not received a copy of the
order.
Men of the law except for Noynoys apologists were all up in arms over the
audacity of Noynoy and De Lima in defying the court order saying that logic and
the rules of law all go against the arguments on new-found law legal theories
which the Palace presents in defying the SC order.
Sen. Joker Arroyo said the fact that the issuance of the TRO has become
common knowledge due to the SCs announcement when it was issued and the media
reports that followed make it enforceable under the doctrine of judicial notice.
Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago wanted to immediately put an end to her
existence as she said all that she learned from law school was thrown out of the
window from the actions of the Palace.
Legal experts in turn, were unanimous about the defiance by the executive of
the SC lighting the fuse of a constitutional crisis.
It all boils down to Noynoy and those around him not having any trouble in
defying the law and instead enforcing their will.
The TRO on the travel ban on the Arroyos was not the first case that
Malacaang defied such an order from the high tribunal. A similar issue is now
being contested in the courts after the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
disregarded a stay order on the imposition of a 20 percent final tax on the
PEACe bonds with the Solicitor General using the same argument that it did not
receive the TRO on time for it to be followed.
One wonder then what the overstaffed communications department is doing at
the Palace and all the expensive gadgets it had acquired since it cannot even
effectively coordinate with another branch of government.
Such a shame, the way it now stands, the Palace appears to be operating under
a different set of laws compared to the country that it is supposedly governing.
Needless to say, it is a clear show of dictatorial might.
MANILA TIMES COLUMN
Crisis of its own making Friday, November 18, 2011
00:00
EVEN if some disagree that the country is now facing a constitutional crisis,
few would question that it is rapidly approaching one.
The issue, of course, stems from the petition of a former president accused
of plunder and the government desperate to prevent her from leaving the country.
Unfortunately for a country that is supposed to be focused on improving the
economy and on keeping peace and order, much of the national attention has been
diverted to resolve an impasse—whether or not former President and now Rep.
Gloria Arroyo of Pampanga province should be allowed to seek medical treatment
abroad. But the issues have evolved beyond her, and the emerging concerns
threaten the sanctity of the 1987 Constitution and key institutions, namely the
Executive and Judiciary.
As we see it, the Aquino government is as much to blame for the brewing
crisis as is the accused. We say so because the government could have prevented
this situation had it acted urgently on the six plunder cases filed against Mrs.
Arroyo.
The earliest case was filed about a year ago, but the preliminary
investigations have yet to be completed. Thus, no case has been filed in court.
Are the cases weak? Assuming that they are, President Benigno Aquino 3rd has
been in office for more than 500 days. He and his team have had plenty of time
to gather evidence and to prepare a solid case. Evidently, President Aquino and
his people, particularly Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, are bent on
prosecuting Mrs. Arroyo and her husband—but the authorities seem slow, unwilling
or incapable of doing the work quickly. Whatever the reason, it seems that the
government's resolve to prosecute the Arroyos is disproportionate to its sense
of urgency or capacity to bring the plunder cases to trial.
The government argues that if the Arroyos leave, they will not return when
the cases are eventually heard. Many Filipinos agree with that, but the Arroyo
camp does not for obvious reasons.
Fortunately, there is a relatively easy remedy—file a case in court and ask
the judge to keep the Arroyos here. To repeat, Mrs. Arroyo faces six plunder
cases. But the Aquino government has failed to explain the delay in prosecution.
Instead, we see "high drama" played out in the media, as well as wasted time and
public resources spent on defending the Justice department's directive.
Blaming everyone but itself We are not competent to judge Mrs. Arroyo, but we
realize that she faces a heap of suspicions. As noted earlier, some people have
gathered evidence and have filed cases against her. A court of law will decide
the merits of the allegations. We also believe that she should be made to answer
the allegations in a proper court, at the proper time. That is how the system is
supposed to work. But the government seems to be operating under a different
framework.
For one, the Aquino government sees fault in everyone else but itself. Many
in the government, including de Lima, blame the Arroyos for creating a spectacle
at the airport—going there when they must have known that Immigration officials
were ordered not to let them leave. Only the naïve will think that the Arroyos,
or any person accused of a serious crime, will not defend themselves and do
whatever is necessary to avoid imprisonment.
Many in the government also blame the Supreme Court, specifically the eight
Arroyo-appointed justices who voted for the temporary restraining order, for
failing to get with the Aquino government's program. Some seem to forget that
two Arroyo-appointed justices also voted against the restraining order. One of
them is the leading opponent of Mrs. Arroyo on the bench—Justice Antonio Carpio,
whom she passed up as chief justice.
Beyond the personalities Granted, the question is not about who is to blame.
It might not even be about whether Mrs. Arroyo's medical condition is
life-threatening. Today, the Supreme Court is expected to settle those issues in
a special en banc session.
The bigger questions, it seems, are matters of law, without which there would
be anarchy. For instance, when is a Supreme Court order unlawful? Can it be
subjected to interpretation and appealed with a motion for reconsideration? De
Lima insists that the temporary restraining order was premature and thus, not
yet ready for implementation. Her actions may set a precedent that will impact
temporary restraining orders issued by the courts from now on.
Also, which branch of government is the final arbiter of the law? When is it
legal for the Executive to defy a Supreme Court ruling? The Constitution
provides that there are three co-equal branches of government. Each has a
specific mandate and the power of checks and balances. Leaders and policymakers
should look beyond the personalities involved today, because they will pass on
eventually. The institutions, however, will remain.
Yet another issue is individual rights versus majority rights. Do the
interests of the majority trump that of an individual? To say that it does in
every occasion sounds like tyranny of the majority. Be that as it may, de Lima's
position favors the majority, despite the fact that her argument seems to turn
the Bill of Rights upside down. In history, the oppressed and persecuted have
turned to the Bill of Rights for sanctuary from the majority.
Certainly, these questions can be debated ceaselessly. Even after the Supreme
Court hands down an opinion, we suspect that heated discussions will continue.
But as mentioned, this mess could have been avoided if the Aquino government had
acted expeditiously and remained faithful to the law in pursuing justice.
Chief News Editor: Sol Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2011 by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE
All
rights reserved
PHILIPPINE
HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/phnotweet
This is the PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE (PHNO) Mailing List.
To stop receiving our news items, please send a blank e-mail addressed to: phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please visit our homepage at: http://www.newsflash.org/
(c) Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
phno-digest@yahoogroups.com
phno-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
