- Messages
- 120
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 38
Is there really a need for emergency powers for President Duterte to solve the traffic problem in Manila?
I think that there is no need to give emergency powers to the President. This is a clear violation of Article VI Section 23, paragraphs 1 & 2 of the Constitution of the Philippines , to wit:
"Section 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.
(2) In times of war or other NATIONAL EMERGENCY, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof."
Notice from paragraph (2), it states, 'In times of war or other national emergency....'. The question here is that whether or not, the traffic in Manila constitutes a NATIONAL EMERGENCY?
The framers of our Constitution have clearly stated that only in times of war or other national emergency that emergency powers be given to the President by virtue of course, of Congress approval. When we say, NATIONAL EMERGENCY, it therefore, comprises the entire State from the root word 'NATION' or the whole of the Philippine islands. Merriam-Webster defined national emergency as, "a state of emergency resulting from a danger or threat of danger to a NATION from foreign or domestic sources and usually declared to be in existence by governmental authority (H. S. Truman)."
The question, however, is, 'Will the traffic problem in Manila constitutes a national crisis? Has its magnitude or scope affected the entire Philippines? Or the problem has been localized to a certain areas or places only?
All I'm saying is that, it is not politically correct that we come up with a national emergency status when a problem is confined only to a specific location or space.
Seems to me that the term 'state of national emergency' has become a cliche whenever we have problems of local or regional in nature. Moreover, we should be reminded that some of the terms in our fundamental law may be a caveat to be observed with due diligence in the exercise of powers.
Again, let us be guided by the following questions to understand the meaning of the term NATIONAL:
1. Is Manila, a nation or not?
2. Do the population in NCR, Central Luzon, and Calabarzon, the only population in the Philippines, yes or no? And, do their combined population represents the NATION?
Now, what do we understand about the word 'NATION' or 'NATIONAL'? I am sure, even, a grade 1 pupil, knows the meaning of nation, right? In Tagalog, nation is called 'bansa', emergency is called 'kalamidad' or 'kagipitan'. So, joining the words is 'pambansang kalamidad' or pambansang kagipitan'. Ang bagyo po ba ay pambansang kalamidad?
I don't understand, why we insist that the situation in Manila is in a 'State of National Emergency', when it is not. We can say that perhaps, there can be a 'State of emergency or State of calamity' in referrence to a specific place, but not, a 'State of National Emergency'. How are the two terms differ from each other? I think this will be our concern and this is what drives us to read this post continually.
When the President declares, 'State of emergency', what does he refer to?
Perhaps, this kind of emergency that is needed in Manila is cross-referenced to RA 10121 known as the 'State of Calamity' which is defined as,
A State of Calamity is “a CONDITION involving mass casualty and/or major damages to property, DISRUPTION of means of livelihoods, ROADS and normal way of life of people in the affected areas as a result of the occurrence of NATURAL or HUMAN-INDUCED hazard.”
in Section 16, it states,
"Declaration of State of Calamity – The National Council shall recommend to the President of the Philippines the declaration of a CLUSTER of Barangays, Municipalities, Cities, Provinces, and Regions under a state of calamity, and the lifting thereof, based on the criteria set by the National Council. The President’s declaration may warrant international humanitarian assistance as deemed necessary.”
And the Effects of Declaration of State of Calamity are:
1. Price Control for Basic Necessities/Commodities
2. Granting of No-Interest Loans
3. Appropriation for Calamity Funds
4. Importations and foreign donations
5. Others
Now, going back again to the provision of the Constitution which is the, 'State of National Emergency', Article VI, Section 23, paragraph (1), which states, the power of Congress usually 2/3 of votes from both Houses, shall have the power to 'declare of the existence of a STATE OF WAR'.
And, in paragraph (2), 'In a State of War or OTHER NATIONAL EMERGENCY, Congress, may authorize the President to exercise powers necessary....'
So, what do we mean by OTHER NATIONAL EMERGENCY in the context of State of War? (This surely has nothing to do with RA 10121). Hence, OTHER NATIONAL EMERGENCY may mean in this case to be a 'state of lawless violence', 'state of rebellion' or a 'state of invasion' based on Article VII Section 18 of the Constitution, which states,
"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 the case of invasion or rebellion, the President may for a period of not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under MARTIAL LAW..... The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members (probably 2/3 of votes) in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, ..... Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, EXTEND such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it."
What are the other privileges given by Congress to the President aside from the suspension of privilege of the writ of habeas corpus during Martial Law?
Article XII of the Constitution which is, 'National Economy and Patrimony', states that,
Section 17
In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest.
Hence, temporarily taking over or directing the operation of any public utility or businesses are added in the powers of the President to be given by Congress.
Thus, Congress can only give powers to the President during the State of War or National Emergency, and only within the scope of its mandate as prescribed by the Constitution.
From what I understand from Sec. Tugade is that, what he wanted is for Congress to give emergency powers to the President by reason of 'State of other National Emergency' which is considered to be unconstitutional and beyond the scope of what the constitution has provided. Therefore, the move must be quashed right away.
I think that there is no need to give emergency powers to the President. This is a clear violation of Article VI Section 23, paragraphs 1 & 2 of the Constitution of the Philippines , to wit:
"Section 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.
(2) In times of war or other NATIONAL EMERGENCY, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof."
Notice from paragraph (2), it states, 'In times of war or other national emergency....'. The question here is that whether or not, the traffic in Manila constitutes a NATIONAL EMERGENCY?
The framers of our Constitution have clearly stated that only in times of war or other national emergency that emergency powers be given to the President by virtue of course, of Congress approval. When we say, NATIONAL EMERGENCY, it therefore, comprises the entire State from the root word 'NATION' or the whole of the Philippine islands. Merriam-Webster defined national emergency as, "a state of emergency resulting from a danger or threat of danger to a NATION from foreign or domestic sources and usually declared to be in existence by governmental authority (H. S. Truman)."
The question, however, is, 'Will the traffic problem in Manila constitutes a national crisis? Has its magnitude or scope affected the entire Philippines? Or the problem has been localized to a certain areas or places only?
All I'm saying is that, it is not politically correct that we come up with a national emergency status when a problem is confined only to a specific location or space.
Seems to me that the term 'state of national emergency' has become a cliche whenever we have problems of local or regional in nature. Moreover, we should be reminded that some of the terms in our fundamental law may be a caveat to be observed with due diligence in the exercise of powers.
Again, let us be guided by the following questions to understand the meaning of the term NATIONAL:
1. Is Manila, a nation or not?
2. Do the population in NCR, Central Luzon, and Calabarzon, the only population in the Philippines, yes or no? And, do their combined population represents the NATION?
Now, what do we understand about the word 'NATION' or 'NATIONAL'? I am sure, even, a grade 1 pupil, knows the meaning of nation, right? In Tagalog, nation is called 'bansa', emergency is called 'kalamidad' or 'kagipitan'. So, joining the words is 'pambansang kalamidad' or pambansang kagipitan'. Ang bagyo po ba ay pambansang kalamidad?
I don't understand, why we insist that the situation in Manila is in a 'State of National Emergency', when it is not. We can say that perhaps, there can be a 'State of emergency or State of calamity' in referrence to a specific place, but not, a 'State of National Emergency'. How are the two terms differ from each other? I think this will be our concern and this is what drives us to read this post continually.
When the President declares, 'State of emergency', what does he refer to?
Perhaps, this kind of emergency that is needed in Manila is cross-referenced to RA 10121 known as the 'State of Calamity' which is defined as,
A State of Calamity is “a CONDITION involving mass casualty and/or major damages to property, DISRUPTION of means of livelihoods, ROADS and normal way of life of people in the affected areas as a result of the occurrence of NATURAL or HUMAN-INDUCED hazard.”
in Section 16, it states,
"Declaration of State of Calamity – The National Council shall recommend to the President of the Philippines the declaration of a CLUSTER of Barangays, Municipalities, Cities, Provinces, and Regions under a state of calamity, and the lifting thereof, based on the criteria set by the National Council. The President’s declaration may warrant international humanitarian assistance as deemed necessary.”
And the Effects of Declaration of State of Calamity are:
1. Price Control for Basic Necessities/Commodities
2. Granting of No-Interest Loans
3. Appropriation for Calamity Funds
4. Importations and foreign donations
5. Others
Now, going back again to the provision of the Constitution which is the, 'State of National Emergency', Article VI, Section 23, paragraph (1), which states, the power of Congress usually 2/3 of votes from both Houses, shall have the power to 'declare of the existence of a STATE OF WAR'.
And, in paragraph (2), 'In a State of War or OTHER NATIONAL EMERGENCY, Congress, may authorize the President to exercise powers necessary....'
So, what do we mean by OTHER NATIONAL EMERGENCY in the context of State of War? (This surely has nothing to do with RA 10121). Hence, OTHER NATIONAL EMERGENCY may mean in this case to be a 'state of lawless violence', 'state of rebellion' or a 'state of invasion' based on Article VII Section 18 of the Constitution, which states,
"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 the case of invasion or rebellion, the President may for a period of not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under MARTIAL LAW..... The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members (probably 2/3 of votes) in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, ..... Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, EXTEND such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it."
What are the other privileges given by Congress to the President aside from the suspension of privilege of the writ of habeas corpus during Martial Law?
Article XII of the Constitution which is, 'National Economy and Patrimony', states that,
Section 17
In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest.
Hence, temporarily taking over or directing the operation of any public utility or businesses are added in the powers of the President to be given by Congress.
Thus, Congress can only give powers to the President during the State of War or National Emergency, and only within the scope of its mandate as prescribed by the Constitution.
From what I understand from Sec. Tugade is that, what he wanted is for Congress to give emergency powers to the President by reason of 'State of other National Emergency' which is considered to be unconstitutional and beyond the scope of what the constitution has provided. Therefore, the move must be quashed right away.
Last edited:
