Aquino gov’t warned on using state powers to infringe on individual rights

MANILA, Philippines—The supremacy of the state’s police powers over individual rights during the martial law era was reflected in Justice Secretary Leila de Lima’s insistence that former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s right to travel could be infringed under the same principle.

“Inhuman and degrading punishment is not allowed under the Constitution but why (is the) government doing it to the former president?” Senator Joker Arroyo (no relation to Mrs. Arroyo) asked in an interview.

“Secretary De Lima mentioned the conflict between individual rights versus the right of the state to survive.  That was the same issue during the 14 years of martial law when the right of the state to survive was considered superior to individual rights. That’s why police powers were always invoked during that time,” Senator Arroyo, a human rights lawyer during that period, recalled.

The senator referred to the government’s refusal to allow the former president to leave the country to seek medical treatment abroad.

He asserted that only Congress could determine “what are covered by police powers of the state.”

“Hindi puwedeng kung anong gusto ng gobyerno, they will justify saying ‘this is the right of the state, to protect itself to survive’ (It could not be that whatever government officials want, they will justify saying ‘this is the right of the state…’). That was what happened during martial law, why would they repeat it?” Senator Arroyo asked.

The senator, who served as the first executive secretary of the late president Corazon Aquino’s administration, said the 1986 Constitution was enacted during her term “precisely to save us from martial law.”

He was apparently still smarting from the explanation De Lima gave before the Supreme Court en banc last week when she said the infringement of an individual’s right to travel “is justified under the general principle of the exercise of the (state’s) police power.”

“This is even outside of the constitutional consideration of national security, public safety and public health,” she insisted at that time.

The Supreme Court ordered De Lima to justify her non-compliance with a temporary restraining order (TRO) it issued against Mrs. Arroyo’s inclusion in a watchlist order that prevented her from leaving to seek medical treatment abroad.

De Lima said her authority to issue watchlist and hold-departure orders against individuals facing criminal investigation was an “inherent power” of the government as embodied in Executive Order No. 292, or the Administrative Code of 1987.

The justice secretary said placing Mrs. Arroyo and several others on the watchlist was intended to ensure that they would attend the preliminary hearing on the case to be filed against them concerning the alleged rigging of the 2007 midterm elections in Mindanao.

De Lima added she had to balance the individual’s right to travel and the state’s interest in prosecuting those involved in alleged poll irregularities.

But Senator Arroyo was unconvinced, warning that invoking police powers was a defense used by Marcos during martial law.

“Besides, you cannot be selective in the application of justice. That would be a violation of the Bill of Rights. Human rights should be equally applied to the good and the bad, the innocent and the convict, rich or poor, they should be equal especially when there is no judgment by a court yet,” the senator said.

Arroyo said that after De Lima’s explanation, he got the impression that “the full force of the government is being concentrated (against) Gloria.  It is already assuming that she is guilty when she is still entitled to the Bill of Rights.”

The senator’s tirade was spurred by President Aquino’s latest assault against the Supreme Court before the Makati Business Club last week.

At that time, the President questioned the speed with which the tribunal issued a temporary restraining order barring the Department of Justice from enacting a circular that permitted it to put individuals under a watchlist that in effect curtailed their right to travel.

Senator Arroyo conceded that President Aquino’s verbal attack was the handiwork of his legal advisers who must be cautioned against criticizing the Supreme Court.

“I cannot blame the President for his remarks since he is not a lawyer. But he cleared his statements with his legal advisers so they should be the ones held accountable,” the senator said.

“When government officials criticize the Supreme Court, it does not have power to answer.  And are they saying that the (12) justices appointed during the time of Gloria cannot render right judgment? That the present composition of the Supreme Court cannot make a right decision?” he asked.

“Before they speak again, they better look at history because when Cory (Corazon Aquino’s nickname) took office, she appointed all 15 justices of the Supreme Court and it was led by Claudio Teehankee who was a known dissenter during the Marcos time,” Senator Arroyo recalled.

He said that the late Sen. Lorenzo Tañada advised his colleagues to “never get personal with the Supreme Court” during martial law.

“Even during those times when we cannot expect justice from the Supreme Court, we never got personal. We were careful not to attack it even if it gives an unfavorable decision. But now, just because it issues a TRO, tuta na agad ni Gloria (they are already called lapdog of Gloria). Is that the situation now, that they are free to attack anyone? Dahan-dahan tayo d’yan (Let’s go slow on that),” he warned.

Sen. Franklin Drilon, a known critic of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona, stressed that the Supreme Court “is not exempted from criticism. Any lawyer can question its decisions.”

Drilon said “respect” for the Supreme Court could not be ordered.

“You should show that you deserve respect. All this is happening because of public perception that the tribunal is not an impartial arbiter,” he said.