NOW, THEREFORE, I Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Republic of the Philippines and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested upon me by Section 18, Article 7 of the Philippine Constitution which states that: The President… whenever it becomes necessary, may call out (the) armed forces to prevent or suppress ¦rebellion, and in my capacity as their Commander-in-Chief, do hereby command the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence as well any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction; and as provided in Section 17, Article 12 of the Constitution do hereby declare a State of National Emergency.
It would readily be observed that the operative paragraph consists of two parts: (1) her command to the AFP to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines, under the article on the Executive Department, and (2) her declaration of a State of National Emergency under the article on National Economy and Patrimony.After so much public protests from different sectors including the Senate, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), and the U.P. College of Law Faculty, she issued Proclamation No. 1021, dated March 3, 2006, and entitled Declaring that the State of National Emergency has Ceased to Exist, the operative paragraph of which provides:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, hereby declare that the state of national emergency has ceased to exist.
Again, it would be readily observed that Proc. 1021 has limited its application to the second part of Proc. 1017. It is completely silent on the first. Ergo, Mrs. Arroyos command to the AFP to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines - which is what martial law or military rule is all about stands on record under Proc. 1017 despite Proc. 1021.
Is that command constitutional or unconstitutional? Unconstitutional.
First. The Constitution must be taken to mean exactly what it says. When it states the executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines (Sec. 1, ART. VII), it means the President has the power to EXECUTE the law, but not LEGISLATE nor conduct JUDICIAL REVIEW. These powers are held separately under the Constitution. The holder of one is proscribed from usurping the others.
Second. The Office of the President is the most powerful under the Constitution. It has the power of CONTROL over the entire Executive Department. It has under its command all law enforcement agencies to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed (Sec. 17, ART. VII).
Third. Under the Constitution, the President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion (Sec. 18, ART. VII).
Fourth. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them (Sec. 1, ART. II). The creator of the government is necessarily superior to the creature. Thus, civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military (Sec. 3, id.). What is the role of the military or the AFP under the Constitution? It is the protector of the people and the State (id.)
Fifth. The State maintains one police force, the Philippine National Police (PNP), which is national in scope and civilian in character. (Sec.6, ART. XVI).
Sixth. The President exercises two (2) kinds of authority: (1) civilian, and (2) military. The first refers to the power of control over the Executive Department, except the AFP. The second refers to the power of control over the AFP.
Seventh. Does the constitutional grant of military authority carry with it authority over civilian affairs? No. Why? The grant of military authority is intended to strengthen, not to defeat nor supplant, the civilian. As a general rule, the government operates upon civilian authority. It is only in three exceptional cases where it makes use of military authority. These are: (1) lawless violence; (2) rebellion; or (3) invasion.
Eighth. In case of lawless violence, the President acts in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief and may call out the armed forces to prevent or suppress it. There is, however, a constitutional condition for the use of this power. The calling out of the military must have become REASONABLY NECESSARY. For instance, it must be shown that the PNP and other civilian law enforcers would not be sufficient to prevent or suppress the danger. Otherwise, the perceived necessity would not appear reasonable. Did Mrs. Arroyo comply with the constitutional condition? No.
Did she ever claim her act of calling out the military had become necessary? No,
Did she ever claim the PNP and other civilian law enforcement agencies were no longer capable of effectively maintaining law and order throughout the country? No.
In other words, inspite of Proc. 1021, Mrs. Arroyos command to the AFP - under Proc. 1017, General Order No. 5 (calling out the AFP and the PNP to prevent and suppress terrorism, lawless violence in the country), General Order No. 6 (directing the AFP to coordinate with the PNP), Administrative Order No. 143 (directing the PNP to temporarily suspend permits to carry firearms and possess explosives, and temporarily suspend the issuance of such permits until the state of national emergency is lifted) to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines remains an operative fact on official record.
Given the premises, is the Philippines effectively under military rule?
Yes, under a fake Commander-in-Chief who was installed on January 20, 2001 upon the politically partisan initiative of now Supreme Court Chief Justice, Artemio Panganiban.
