Palace: ‘Nat’l emergency’ targets terroristic activities, not drugs

The proclamation of President Rodrigo Duterte on the state of national emergency was only meant to address “terroristic activities” and does not cover the government’s war on illegal drugs, a Palace official said on Wednesday.

Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea said Proclamation No. 55 or the state of national emergency, signed on September 4, was only meant to suppress or prevent possible terror attacks.

“Terroristic activities lang po ang ina-address po natin dito. Iba iyong sa droga, police matter ho iyon na ginagawa na ho ng mga different agencies concerned po,” Medialdea said in an interview with DZMM.

(We’re only addressing terroristic activities here. [The war on drugs] is a different thing; it’s a police matter already being addressed by different agencies concerned.)

Medialdea issued the statement as Malacañang released the guidelines on the implementation of Proclamation No. 55 or the state of national emergency on account of lawless violence.

READ: Duterte signs state of national emergency proclamation

The Palace official allayed fears of possible violation of constitutional rights amid the proclamation.

Under the guidelines on Memorandum Order No. 3, Section 4 it is stated that “at all times, the constitutional rights of every individual shall be respected and given due regard by the AFP and the PNP in the implementation of this Memorandum Order.”

It added that “no civil or political rights are suspended during the existence of a state of lawless violence.”

Medialdea, however, cited four cases for the implementation of a warrantless arrest.

• The person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer

• An offense has just been committed and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested committed the offense

• The person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporary confined while his case is pending

• The person arrested, or to be arrested, has voluntarily waived his right against warrantless arrest

But Medialdea said the four bases for a warrantless arrest already “existed” in the Constitution.

“Iyon namang warrantless arrest at saka seizures po, huwag po kayong mabahala doon kasi iyan ay existing po iyan. In-emphasize lang po natin dito sa guidelines para malaman din ng ating kapulisan na ito ay dapat nating sundan,” he said in a separate interview with DZBB.

(As for warrantless arrests and seizures, you need not worry because those are already existing in the Constitution. We are only emphasizing the guidelines here so that the police may also know that this has to be followed.)

In a Palace briefing, Marie Banaag, Presidential Communications Office (PCO) Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs, said the four cases were enshrined in the Constitution and the Revised Penal Code.

“They are already existing. In fact, they are based on the Constitution and based on the Revised Penal Code. Whether the proclamation was issued or not, they still take effect. They are still part of the law of the land,” Banaag said.

Warrantless search and seizure

Under the memorandum, specific situations for the implementation of a warrantless search and seizure were also listed, which include:

• When the person to be searched has consented to the search or has voluntarily waived his right against warrantless searches and seizures
• As an incident to a lawful arrest, and the search is made contemporaneous to the arrest and within a permissible area of search
• Search of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration and customs laws
• Search of automobiles at borders or “constructive” borders for violation of immigration or smuggling laws
• Where the objects and effects to be seized are in plain view
• Stop-and-frisk situations
• Search arising from exigent and emergency circumstances

Checkpoints and inspections

In case of police and military checkpoints, the memorandum said that “inspection shall be limited to a request to roll down vehicle windows, search for things in plain view only, and production of identification and vehicle registration papers.

“Intrusive actions” such as the opening the trunks or lid or for passengers to step out would not be required unless the individual agrees to do so.

The memorandum added that in stop-and-frisk situations, search would be limited to light patting the outer garments of the individual to detect weapons or similar objects.

Possible violations

Medialdea said members of the AFP and the PNP who would violate any of the guidelines would be dealt with accordingly.

Under Section 6, it stated that “any AFP and PNP personnel found violating any of the foregoing constitutional rights shall be held administratively, civilly, criminally liable therefor.”

“The memorandum was issued to limit what the AFP and PNP may do. As you can see, we put a premium to civil rights. And we would like to emphasize the Proclamation No. 55 is not meant to undermine the Bill of Rights,” Banaag said. CDG

READ: What’s in a name? State of National Emergency