Smoking a Joint (Session)
Posted on | December 10, 2009 | 1 Comment
I was faced with a not-so-Constitutional question two days ago, on the eve of the Philippine Congress announcing that a joint session of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall be conducted to review President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s Proclamation No. 1959, declaring a state of Martial Law and suspending the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Mindanao province of Maguindanao, purportedly as the best-fit response to the “rebellion” in the area.
What exactly were they contemplating on by using the term joint session? An undergraduate college student would think of the ordinary meaning of a joint session given his context: buddies smoking weed together (A). A law student would say that it simply means Congresspersons and Senators formally meeting together (B). From what I saw last night at the House of Representatives, it was almost A & B at the same time.
Thanks to the initiative of the UP College of Law administration, several law professors of ours cancelled their afternoon to evening classes to allow for close to 200 UP Law students to attend what, no matter how it turned out, was a historical event in the life of our nation. As I told a friend who asked why it was a big thing to us to actually witness the proceedings, I explained that it was analogous to the excitement that medical students feel when a unique/rare/exotic disease manifests itself in a patient. In that medical example, there is some sort of bragging right to the claim of having witnessed with your own senses what would otherwise be only in textbooks.
In a legal sense, the Congressional joint session to review Martial Law, taken together with the events surrounding it, breathed life into the 1987 Constitution’s Section 18, Article VII. No proceeding of its kind has ever taken place before; Pres. Ferdinand Marcos in his 1972 to 1983 dictatorship made sure Congress would not be able to do it – by law, and by force. As to whether this breathing life into the letters of the 1987 supreme Law is akin to Lazarus being called from the grave -or- Dr. Frankenstein energizing his monster, remains to be seen.
With PGMA’s Proclamation 1959, based on her assertion that rebellion is taking place in Maguindanao, the following was implemented:
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 or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.
During the joint session, PNP General Caro presented the briefing by way of powerpoint slides. In a tone not far from that adopted in the twenty (20)-page written report transmitted to Congress last Sunday, December 6, the presentation made much use of the “gruesome massacre” angle. Towards the end of the presentation however came what was expected: a strong assertion by the Executive that RAGs (short for Rebel Armed Groups; I love it how we Filipinos come up with catchy acronyms) have been setting-up positions in the province.
To the line of questioning to determine whether there have indeed been military skirmishes, the response was in the negative; but the guests from the Executive branch were quick to assert that for rebellion to occur, actual firefights need not happen but just the mere “taking up arms” by civilians (CVOs or Civilian Volunteer Organizations) which can then be translated into a public uprising. By this revelation, would it then not be easy for the Executive to declare Martial Law all over the country, because there are several private armies of warlords all over the islands?
Curiously, a number of solons began berating the representatives of the Executive who were present based on the issue of what exactly is the President’s report to Congress. Relevant to this issue of the joint session, and what the President’s “report” should be is the following paragraph of the Constitution:
Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President.
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile gave an impromptu lecture on what a “report” in the above sense means. It was a bit surreal and chilling when he emphasized that he was speaking from personal experience (he being Pres. Marcos’ original implementer of Martial Law in 1972), on what the spirit of the law now intended as a check on a would-be dictator. He in effect interpreted the word “report” to mean a justification or rationalization based on facts on why the President exercised her Commander-in-Chief power to declare Martial Law and suspend the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Parallel to the power of Congress to revoke (or extend) Martial Law and/or the suspension of the privilege to the Writ is the Supreme Court’s judicial power to review if the factual bases of either invasion or rebellion are sufficient. An initial five petitions were filed at the Supreme Court last Monday, December 7 urging the Court to use its power to nullify Proc. 1959 because there is no rebellion or invasion going on. The Constitutional provision reads thus:
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
During the joint session, an unexpected parliamentary inquiry was raised by Rep. Teddy Boy Locsin (Makati) wherein he practically accused Rep. Didagen Dilangalen (Maguindanao) of forum shopping. Forum shopping in legal parlance means someone seeking the intervention of multiple courts or forums/fora all at the same time, which is not allowed. Never mind the sparks that were about to fly; in the end both sides were pacified. I wonder though why Rep. Locsin even had to raise that point, because it just delayed the proceedings.
Interpellations followed the report presentation, with only four solons getting to ask questions prior to the suspension of session for the night: Sen. Noynoy Aquino, Rep. Dilangalen, Sen. Joker Arroyo, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, and Rep. Satur Ocampo. It honestly seemed to me that both Sens. Aquino and Arroyo were reading from a prepared script, with the added disappointment of not being able to deliver their lines properly.
As one who voted for Sen. Joker Arroyo under his “Pipol’s Dragon” and “Kapag Bad Ka, Lagot Ka” (you’re doomed if you’re bad) slogans, I was disappointed with his line of questioning that effectively allowed the Executive to speak into the record of Congress its interpretation of the extent of Congressional power as regards the revocation of Martial Law. It was akin to a father asking his wayward daughter to tell him how she should be punished, and to what extent she should be grounded.
At 8:45 in the evening, after almost five hours of the “joint session”, I really did feel what the stereotypical college kid in a joint session of his kind would: this empty, light-headed buzz that had me laughing myself off and going home for a food trip.
Comments
One Response to “Smoking a Joint (Session)”
Leave a Reply
December 10th, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Manuel L. Quezon III and Albert Domingo, yas ocampo. yas ocampo said: My thoughts exactly.
RT @mlq3: RT @albertdomingo: Smoking a Joint (Session) http://bit.ly/4HcuAE #uplaw [...]