State of National Emergency

Why? To give protection to the people? To avoid violence? To avoid state destabilization? Or to suppress “democracy”?

The 1987 Philippine Constitution clearly states that (Art. VII, Sec. 18) “The President shall be the Commander-in-chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion and rebellion…”

That’s it. Being the Commander-in-chief of the AFP, the Philippine President deemed it necessary to proclaim a state of national emergency after the military frustrated a plot of coup de tat and take over the government.

Around eleven o’clock in the morning, the day before the commemoration of the 1986 EDSA People Power, Filipinos (especially those in the Metro) buzzed around unable to explain what was happening in the country. Proclamation 1017, the State of National Emergency, has become official.

“This is my warning to those who plan to grab power, your betrayal will be dealt with under the full force of the law,” the President said in her statement aired live on radio and television.

Declaring a state of emergency is not martial law, political experts say; however, it would be mistakenly promulgated as such. However, the normal judicial system remains in place (what does this statement mean?).

Suppression of Democracy

It is such an irony. The President chose to declare state of national emergency at the eve of the 20th anniversary of EDSA People Power, the rebellion that earned Filipinos freedom and restored the country’s democracy.

Officials who are supporting the president said that her proclamation is just a preventive measure before anyone or any group of military and civilians alike could destabilize the government. However, the first Philippine woman president said that the proclamation of the current president is a suppression of the long-battled democracy.

On Freedom of Expression

The President invoked Article 18 Section 7 of the Constitution that states “In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest.”

The president’s proclamation, according to her chief of staff, will pave the way for warrant-less arrests, government takeover of utilities, including media, and a ban on rallies. (How about the people’s rights?)

Article III Section 4 of the Constitution states that “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances.”

When they (whoever they are) imposed the calibrated preemptive response (CPR) or the “no permit, no rally”, that was already in violation of the above Constitutional provision. Then again, that state of emergency restrains the privilege right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for address of grievances.”

In my own point of view, I think people who assemble in the streets or in “freedom” parks are not doing any wrong. They are just there exercising their rights, because they think that that is the best way for them to address the government—to raise their hands and shout. For that, as long as they are not hurting people or are not threats to national security, they should not be dealt with bans and CPRs. That is still their right vested to them by the Constitution. Why not say that by the power vested in me by the Constitution blah, blah, blah. It’s not always the president or the chief justice has the right to say those lines.

On Responsible Media

Just last week, a columnist in one of the leading broadsheets published an email he received condemning the media of paying “dearly for calling attention to our ugly side.”

In this time of “crisis”, let’s just see how responsible media could be.

Who could really tell or judge if the media is responsible in bringing people information? What would be the prevalent side: the right of people to information or the media following the directives of the government (a.k.a. censorship) so as not to publish or air issues that could incite rebellion? By the way, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) has already issued an order to the media to explain to their audiences the true nature of that so-called state of national emergency and not to air anything that would mean destruction to the government.

So the fourth estate, the watchdog of the government and the society is already being watched over. Though the NTC order has its grey areas, it’s already imposed and should be followed.

This event is another “ugly side” of the Philippines. Extensive coverage and “sensationalism” would mean economic instability, and bad image to foreigners, and more chain of reactions. Would media show compassion to our country or would just cling to the principle of “objective” reporting—bringing news as they happen?

+++

Now, what can we do?

+++

Could the government give full justification of proclaiming a state of national emergency, in a way that an ordinary person could understand?

+++

Do you think you are given protection?

+++

Do you think the proclamation avoided or will avoid violence?

+++

Million dollar question: Do you think “democracy” is suppressed? Or the President in just exercising the power vested in her by the Constitution? (blah, blah, blah)

+++

Do you know why I keep on putting quotes every time I type the word “democracy”? Because during this time of state of national emergency, I really don’t know what does that word mean, and if I happen to misinterpret it, someone might just arrest me. Bwahahaha!

Other than that, I never mentioned any name. I think you already know why…