星期一 [ 2010-1-11 9:51:19 | watches1013 ]   One opinion on GMA's state of rebellion Byline: Willie N Ng IN dismissing four petitions filed separately by Sanlakas, the Social Justice Society, Rep. Rolex Suplico et al, and Sen. Aquilino Pimentel questioning President Arroyos declaration of a state of rebellion following the Oakwood mutiny, the Supreme Court ruled: "The President, in declaring a state of rebellion and in calling out the Armed Forces, was merely exercising a wedding of her Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief powers. The court, in supporting its decision cited several interpretations of constitutional provisions. * * * The lone dissenter was Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez who disagreed "that the state of rebellion is justified under Article VII of the 1987 Constitution granting her Executive and Commander-in-Chief powers. She wrote, "It is my view that nowhere in the Constitution can be found a provision which grants to the President the authority to declare a state of rebellion or exercise powers, which may be legally allowed only under a state of martial law. But to declare a state of martial law entails troublesome conditions such as requiring the President to report in person or in writing to the Congress within 48 hours of the proclamation. Congress may, with a majority vote, revoke such proclamation. * * * Justice Gutierrez said that without proclaiming anything, the President could have just called out the Army to suppress the Oakwood rebels. Omega Fake "However, adopting the unorthodox measure unbounded and not canalized by the language of the Constitution is dangerous, she wrote. "It leaves the people at her mercy and that of the military She cited the declaration of a "state of rebellion on May 1, 2001, when pro-Erap forces marched to Malacanang. With that declaration came a flurry of warrantless arrests. Among the victims were two former senators, Juan Ponce Enrile and Ernesto Maceda. She also recalled that while the Oakwood mutiny ended on the night of July 27, 2003, the "state of rebellion continued up to Aug. 1. She wrote: "As it turned out, several searches and seizures took place during the extended period. * * * She declared that the Constitution does not support "limitless authority for the Commander-in-Chief: "Born by the nations past experiences, the concurrence of the Congress is required as a measure to ward off totalitarian rule. Justice Gutierrez continued: "As a matter of fact, the changes made by the 1986 Constitutional Commission in the martial law text of the Constitution were to a large extent a reaction against the direction which this Court took during the regime of President Marcos. "In ruling that the declaration of a state of rebellion is a prerogative of the President, then, I say, our country is retracing the same dangerous road of the past. Full lace wigs That is the opinion of one against that of twelve. Other articles: http://www.51ifm.cn/Blog/View/?225 http://www.cfu100.com/Blog/View/?279 浏览(174) | 回复(0)
|