Clampdown on the Day of Freedom

Today, the Philippines commemorates the 20th anniversary of the first People Power. It is considered as a bloodless revolution admired by the entire world in 1986. Today, interest groups once again will troop to the EDSA Shrine not just to recall the heroism of those who stood firm against the dictator in 1986. Today also marks the groups’ articulation of disgust over President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s leadership.

This celebration is stalled. The President declared a state of national emergency.

At 2 a.m. there was a failed coup attempt. One brigadier general withdrew support to the government but he was contained. Classes in all levels were suspended. The political opposition was alleged as a co-conspirator of the Left and the Extreme Right. About eight hours later, the Commander-in-Chief declared Proclamation No. 1017 with the goal to protect the government from lawless elements, and maintain peace, order, and safety. The declaration was believed to be enshrined in Article II, Sec. 4 and Art. VII, Sec. 18. No congressional bicameral concurrence was needed for the declaration.

Based on television interviews with constitutionalists, lawyers, government officials, and the military, a country under this state will observe the following:

1. No political rallies are allowed. The EDSA 1 celebration was cancelled. The police dispersed the protesters.
2. Warrant-less arrests can be made.
3. Government can take over utilities in the name of public interest.
4. There are no curfews.
5. Declaration stays unless lifted by the President herself.

Among other ways of carrying out the declaration, the government expressed its difference from martial law that is absolutist in nature:

1. No political rallies are allowed.
2. Warrant-less arrests can be made. The current scenario, however, allows a writ of habeas corpus and may question the detention. Since the courts still function, then the arrests may be affirmed or refuted.
3. Government can take over utilities in the name of public interest.
4. There are curfews.
5. Declaration stays unless lifted by the President herself.

Qualms about the declaration from vanguards of democracy cannot be muffled. The sad plight of the Philippines during the martial law is an unforgettable ghost.

Questions:

1. Is there a need to declare a state of emergency to nip in the bud the perceived lawlessness?
2. Is there a clear and present danger in rallies such that all political in nature have to be prevented?
3. What will happen to civil liberties which remain protected despite the declaration?

The coup was contained. According to President Arroyo, the government is now in control of the situation. The Armed Forces still expressed allegiance to her. The loyalty check was favorable to her.

Intelligence reports on impending threats justified the declaration. But the declaration is unnecessary as it damages other areas in socio-politics. I think it is an overreaction and it is too preemptive in nature. It clearly delineates the lines between those who are in favor and not to her administration. The ban on all rallies is a perfumed way to prevent her ouster. If the military is at your side then there is nothing to fear. But perhaps because loyalty can change colors she just ensured a scheme to maintain that loyalty.

It takes one to know one. She has lost her loyalty (if ever she was) to democracy because the declaration negates democracy itself. Multi-perspectives or diverse opinions are significant in democracy but the silencing of the opposition through the ban on rallies prohibits these. Banning rallies disallows avenues to express opposition.

The banning of all rallies also assumes that it is a form of clear and present danger. Remember that President Estrada stepped down from power after the rallies in EDSA. President Arroyo has declared the same state of emergency on May 1, 2001 after rallyists almost stormed Malacañang to oust her. It must have been traumatic and because she does not want history to repeat itself, she banned all rallies now. Protestors were prevented from merging. They were squashed while still manageable.

Perhaps, one lame argument behind the prevention of rallies is that lawless elements and opportunists might exploit rallies as a mouthpiece to drag her out of her political seat. A strong, assertive, and vocal throng of people can pressure the military to withdraw support like what General Ramos and Angelo Reyes did during the two epochs of bloodless revolutions. President Arroyo took the same stance now because of paranoia. Or schizophrenia. She uses national security as shield at the expense of civil liberties.

Freedom of expression. Freedom of assembly. Eventually, right to information and freedom of the press will also be limited as media reportage has restrictions now. There is also the threat of government takeover if the media support entities that incite rebellion or sensationalize treasonous materials. The new media behavior that constitutes a lapdog is not yet clear. But clearly, the media as venue of expression of diverse opinions, both positive and negative to the government, is now inexistent. The gagging is ominous which tends to suggest that media should be acquiescent to the government.

The real threat to national security is not posed by those who clamor development and change in governance. It is a constitutional entitlement to express the need for a better government. It is a human inkling to demand the best.

Those who cannot deliver public service but who cling on to power because of pride and reputation in effect exacerbate the real threat not just to national security but to democracy. Social unrest will not end unless the root cause is addressed.

In the coming days there will be a constitutional battle on the interpretation of the right to protect the State and the right to self-expression. It will be intellectually bloody. The quest for truth and the definition of truth will be elusive. It takes sacrifice to end the battle among Filipinos. Who will sacrifice?