|
Thursday, June 08, 2006
SC dismisses appeals on emergency rule decision
MANILA -- The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday junked with finality the motions sought by state lawyers and petitioners seeking reconsideration of its May 3 ruling invalidating certain portions of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's emergency rule order.
In an en banc resolution, the high court declared final its decision upholding the constitutionality of Proclamation 1017, which placed the country under a state of emergency on February 24 amid alleged attempts to topple Arroyo's government.
The same order, however, declared illegal some acts of the police during the imposition of the state of emergency, such as the conduct of warrantless arrests, raid on the Daily Tribune newspaper, and imposition of standards on media firms. It also struck down a provision in the order allowing the Arroyo administration to take over privately owned public utilities.
"Acting on the motions for partial reconsideration of the decision of May 3, 2006, the court resolved to deny with finality the motions as the basic issues raised therein have been passed upon by this court and no substantial arguments were presented to warrant the reversal of the questioned decision," the SC ruled.
Those who filed for partial reconsideration were the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), whose members were violently dispersed by anti-riot police while they were marching along Edsa to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the 1986 People Power revolt.
In the ruling on Proclamation 1017, the SC voted to uphold the constitutionality of the declaration of the state of national emergency and its implementing guidelines in General Order (GO) 5.
The SC ruled that Proclamation 1017 is constitutional insofar as it constitutes a call by the President for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to prevent or suppress lawless violence.
But in its motion for partial reconsideration, Solicitor General Eduardo Nachura said the high court could not strike down pertinent provisions of Proclamation 1017 and GO 5, particularly the authority of the President to call on the military to suppress acts of terrorism as well as her exercise of emergency powers under Section 17 of Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
The high court ordered parties in the petitions assailing the constitutionality of Executive Order (EO) 464 to comment on the motions for reconsideration filed by Partido ng Demokratikong Pilipino (PDP)-Laban and the solicitor general.
The SC gave the parties, which include Bayan Muna, Alternative law Groups, members of the Senate, and lawyer Jose Anselmo Cadiz--representing the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), 10 days within which to comment on the motions for reconsideration.
In a unanimous vote of 14 to 0 with one abstention, the SC voided for being unconstitutional several provisions of EO 464, which prohibits government officials, including the military and the police, from appearing in any congressional inquiry without prior approval of President Arroyo.
Among the provisions was the enumeration of officials covered by the executive order and the requirement for them to first secure the consent of the President before appearing in congressional hearings.
But while it affirmed the right of Congress to compel the appearance of officials at congressional inquiries, the SC also said the President has the right to ban executive officials from appearing in the Senate and the House of Representatives during the so-called "Question Hour", which do not relate to specific legislations but are directed merely to congressional oversight over the implementation of laws. (ECV/Sunnex)
(June 8, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
|
|
[return to top]
[home]
|
|
Assassins mock US, kill 1 more