SUPREME COURT ISSUES MIXED RULING ON STATE OF

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 MANILA 001913 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS DEPT FOR EAP, EAP/MTS, INR/EAP E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PHUM PINS PINR RP SUBJECT: SUPREME COURT ISSUES MIXED RULING ON STATE OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY REF: A. MANILA 1812 ¶B. MANILA 1792 ¶C. MANILA 1746 ¶D. MANILA 914 ¶E. MANILA 830 ¶1. (SBU) Summary: The Supreme Court, in a May 3 ruling, upheld the validity of President Arroyo's imposition of a State of National Emergency on February 24. However, the Court also ruled that the curbing of rallies and a police raid on a newspaper were illegal. Both Malacanang and the Opposition hailed the Court's ruling, focusing on different aspects. Overall, the ruling probably gave the Opposition more to crow about, given the recent string of Supreme Court decisions that appear to place constraints on executive authority. End Summary. -------------- Mixed Ruling on Proclamation 1017 -------------- ¶2. (U) On May 3, the Supreme Court ruled 11-3 that President Arroyo's February 24 declaration of a State of National Emergency (Proclamation 1017) was constitutional. The 78-page decision declared that it was within the powers of the President, as commander-in-chief, to call upon the armed forces to "suppress lawless violence." The Court also upheld the constitutionality of General Order No. 5 directing the Philippine National Police (PNP) and Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to take "necessary and appropriate actions" to prevent "lawless violence." ¶3. (U) While upholding the validity of the declaration of a State of National Emergency, the justices ruled that some actions by the police and military in implementing Proclamation 1017 violated citizens' rights under the Constitution. Specifically, the Supreme Court declared illegal: the warrantless arrest of anti-President Arroyo professor Randy David and other protesters during a rally; dispersal of several anti-Arroyo rallies; and a raid on the "Daily Tribune," during which police seized articles for publication. The Court found that there was no proof that the suspects were committing acts that would constitute "lawless violence, invasion or rebellion," and therefore the police and military had no legal authority to exercise extraordinary powers under Proclamation 1017 to curtail the rights of due process, peaceable assembly, and free speech. The Court also ruled that the raid on the newspaper constituted an attack on press freedoms. �00A;¶4. (U) Eleven Supreme Court justices concurred with the majority decision, penned by Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez. Three justices argued in a dissenting opinion that Proclamation 1017 was constitutional in every aspect, as was its implementation. (The fifteenth Supreme Court Justice, Reynato Puno, was on leave due to the recent death of his wife.) Although the three dissenting justices were appointed by President Arroyo, the seven other Arroyo appointees, including Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, sided with the majority in limiting Malacanang's emergency powers. -------------- GRP, Opposition Hail Decision -------------- ¶5. (SBU) Both Malacanang and members of the Opposition sought to portray the ruling as a vindication of their positions. Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye told the media on May 3, "We are glad that...the Supreme Court decision affirmed the government's inherent right to protect itself and the President's power under the Constitution to call out the armed forces to suppress lawless violence." Critics of Malacanang, on the other hand, emphasized the Court's rejection of measures taken by the police and military to implement Proclamation 1017. Senate Majority Leader Francis Pangilinan praised the Court, stating in a May 3 press conference that the decision effectively affirmed a February Senate resolution condemning acts that flowed from the declaration of Proclamation 1017 (ref D). House Minority Leader Francis "Chiz" Escudero added that the ruling vindicated opposition to President Arroyo's "dictatorial tendencies." Another opposition Congressman called the ruling "a real embarrassment to Malacanang because it showed that it had far overreached with Proclamation 1017." MANILA 00001913 002 OF 002 -------------- Impact of Ruling -------------- ¶6. (SBU) Senate Majority Leader Francis Pangilinan said publicly that it was not enough for the Supreme Court to declare certain actions undertaken under Proclamation 1017 illegal, but that someone must be made to answer for the illegal arrest of Professor Randy David on February 24, at a minimum. However, in its May 3 decision, the Supreme Court declined to impose sanctions on individual police officers, noting that they had not been individually identified and given their day in court. A Supreme Court official predicted privately that the May 3 ruling would not have any bearing on pending cases against a group of leftist lawmakers known as the "Batasan 5" (ref B) and others charged by the GRP with "sedition." He commented that these cases had been brought under pre-existing statutes already on the books and not under the authority of Proclamation 1017. -------------- Comment -------------- ¶7. (SBU) Although both sides hailed the ruling, it probably gave the Opposition more to crow about, given the recent string of Supreme Court decisions that appear to place constraints on executive authority (refs A and C). Given its perennially fragmented state, the Opposition needs any momentum it can get; the critical tone of the May 3 decision gives the Opposition new ammunition. The ruling also reinforced the perception that the Supreme Court is becoming more independent, a plus for Philippine democracy. The news was also positive for the media, which had vigorously complained about the pressures the GRP applied during the State of National Emergency. Visit Embassy Manila's Classified SIPRNET website: http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eap/manila/index. cfm You can also access this site through the State Department's Classified SIPRNET website: http://www.state.sgov.gov/ Kenney