轉錄自苦勞網
http://61.222.52.195/news/database/Interface/Detailstander.asp?ID=110553
■苦勞論壇2006/02/28
◎作者：Neri Javier Colmenares
（自由辯護律師、COUNSELS FOR THE DEFENSE OF LIBERTIES，
CODAL發言人）
／施逸翔譯（東吳大學人權學程）
　　CODAL譴責艾若育總統最近頒佈1017號文告以宣佈戒嚴的違憲
之舉。當年馬可仕（Ferdinand Marcos）總統在戒嚴時期，儘管在政
權已經失去民心的情況下，為了緊咬政權不放而頒佈文告，而艾若育
的文告跟馬可仕的文告沒有什麼兩樣。
　　首先，用來作為1017號文告之基礎的憲法第12條第 17款，最
初是馬可仕總統在他執政期間為了賦予自己能接管私人企業的權力，
而打造的戒嚴法條款。第17款規定：「在國家非常時期，當其時為了
公眾利益之必須，國家在危急時以及在此情況下生效的合理條款規定
下，可以暫時接管或指揮任何將影響到公眾利益的私人公司或企業之
營運。」
　　艾若育總統並不等同國家，而且憲法也不可能允許總統被授予
屬於「國家」絕對的權力，尤其是在人民已經有了馬可仕總統戒嚴法
的經驗之後。1987年的憲法中，充滿了確保國會有權檢驗總統權力的
條款，其內涵在於只有在國會通過法案的情況下，才授予總統權力。
因此，第17款中明文規定的「國家」，意指國會頒佈法案，而總統依
法執行之。對於1987年的憲法而言，不可能在沒有國會的批准下，授
予艾若育總統可以接管私人企業這種毫無限制的權力。需注意的是，
即使她行使更加強大的戒嚴法權力，也必須經由國會的批准。此外，
這件事明確地反映在憲法第六條第23款第2項，其中清楚地規定了非
常時期的權力：
　　第23款第2項：「在戰爭時期或其他國家緊急情況下，國會依
法可以授權總統，在一段時效內而且要服從該法規定的限制，去行使
必要的權力，並適切地實現所宣佈的國家政策。」
　　既然憲法要求，只有國會才能批准總統較強大的戒嚴法權力以
及國家在緊急情況下的其他權力，那麼1017號文告就不能在沒有立法
的程序下，合法合憲地存在。明顯地，1017號文告只是艾若育總統單
方面的宣佈，它並沒有受到法律或國會的贊同。艾若育總統在靠著46
4行政命令侵害國會的立法權力後，就像馬可仕總統一樣，已經再一
次擅自為她自己取得一個更多的立法機制。
　　第二，按照憲法第7條第18款，就不會給予1017號文告合憲性
，這不只是因為這一款裡根本找不到「緊急情況」這樣的字眼，也因
為完全欠缺「緊急情況」的事實基礎。
　　第18款規定：「總統必須是菲律賓三軍的最高指揮官，每當必
要之時，他可以召集三軍武力預防或鎮壓非法的暴力、侵略或叛亂。
在侵略或叛亂的情況下，當其時為了公眾利益之必須，他在不超過60
天的期限內，可以暫時取消人身保護令的基本權利，或讓菲律賓進入
戒嚴的狀態。在頒佈戒嚴法或暫時取消人身保護令之基本權利的48小
時內，總統必須親自提出一份報告，或以書面報告遞交國會。」
　　在這項條款中，完全沒有提到可以授予她額外權力的「緊急情
況」。既然憲法在其他條款中明確地規定「緊急情況」下的權力，那
麼她就不能按第18款宣佈這樣的緊急情況。艾若育總統竟然堅持1017
號文告是奠基於第18款，規定她擁有戒嚴法的權力，那麼這樣的文告
就不能被視為可以授予她額外的權力。她只是在通告國人，她現有的
權力和既存的權力優先於文告，並在這樣的架構下，號召軍力以鎮壓
叛亂或非法的暴力。她並不能把這解釋為授予額外的權力，容許她鎮
壓集會活動、非法逮捕、或接管媒體事業。
　　此外，在總統召集軍力之前，必須真的有非法的暴力、叛亂和
侵略才行。集會活動並不是「非法的」暴力，而是人民在憲法的保障
下，正當地行使他的權利。視集會為「非法」的艾若育總統，就像馬
可仕總統一樣，已經非法地把對於行使憲法保障的權利，視為針對她
的攻擊和對於國家安全的侵害。
　　最後，既然文告沒有授予她額外的權力，在「緊急情況」期間
，憲法和權利清單就沒有被擱置，正如同最高法院在「Sanlakas vs.
Angelo Reyes」一案中已經提過的那樣，即：
　　「竟然在427號文告和第4號通令的頒佈下，沒有引發任何的「
混亂情況」，我們便獲得澄清……僅僅只是宣稱有叛亂的狀況，也不
能縮減或違反憲法保障的權利。甚至，如果戒嚴的狀態並沒有擱置憲
法的運作，或自動擱置人身保護令的基本權利，那麼就有更多的理由
支持，只是宣稱有叛亂的情況，也不能造成那些條件限制。無論如何
，總統的頒佈命令本身，如果需要鎮壓叛亂，就必須「適切地關涉到
憲法保障的權利」。」
　　馬拉坎南宮和國家通訊委員會對於媒體的控管：是非法的 以
暴力的方式驅散和逮捕像是Randy David教授和Argee Guevarra律師
這樣的集會人士，明顯地根本就沒有法律上的基礎。在憲法第三條的
保障下，反抗任意逮捕的權利尚未被終止。艾若育總統宣佈「取消所
有集會的許可令」，這也是非法的，因為只有市長和當地政府依法才
有權力准許或取消這些許可令。集會自由依然是有效的權利。
　　以政府的勒令歇業或因為「報導」反對勢力的活動而遭政府接
收的制裁，來威脅媒體，這是對於言論自由的迫害，因為言論自由依
然存在。因此，行政官員的警告其實是非法的，而且這讓他們有成為
罪犯的條件，並需負起行政的責任。
　　就在20年前馬可仕總統垮台的這一天，艾若育總統已經完全變
成另一位「馬可仕總統」。CODAL要求，僅管艾若育總統宣佈了她的
文告，也要尊重權利清單和憲法。既然1017號文告並不授予她額外的
權力，而僅僅只是讓國家陷入進一步的不穩定，我們要求她必須撤銷
1017號文告。CODAL號召所有律師們要公開站出來批評違憲和侵害人
民權利的行為。CODAL號召律師們要給予人民法律上的協助，因為人
民將來很可能會成為1017號文告下的受害者。CODAL也特別譴責對於A
rgee Guevarra的逮捕行動，因為他不只是在行使他的憲法權利，而
且也是在實踐他作為一名律師的專業。CODAL強烈呼籲具有法律專業
的成員們，包括法律系的學生們，請你們站出來並站在人民這一邊，
維護他們憲法保障的基本權利，以對抗戒嚴統治下一步步逼近的威脅
。
原文：
COUNSELS FOR THE DEFENSE OF LIBERTIES
PRES. ARROYO'S EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION: A MARCOSIAN LEGAL T
OOL TO STAY IN POWER
CODAL condemns Pres. Gloria Arroyo's latest violation of t
he Constitution by issuing Proclamation 1017 declaring a sta
te of emergency. This proclamation is no different from the
proclamations issued by Pres. Ferdinand Marcos during martia
l law in his attempt to stay in power despite the peoples re
vulsion to his reign.
Firstly, Sec. 17, Art. XII which was used as basis by Proc
lamation 1017 is a martial law provision initially crafted b
y Pres. Ferdinand Marcos during his reign to empower him to
take over private businesses. Sec. 17 provides that:
'In times of national emergency, when the public interest
so requires, the State may, during the emergency and under r
easonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or d
irect the operation of any privately owned public utility or
business affected with public interest.
Pres. Arroyo is not the State and there is no way that the
Constitution could have granted the President granted the p
lenary powers of a "state" especially after the peoples' mar
tial law experience with Pres. Marcos. The intent of the 198
7 Constitution, which is steeped in provisions ensuring cong
ressional checks to the powers of the President, is to grant
such power to the President only upon a law passed by Congr
ess. The 'state' in Sec. 17 therefore means Congress issuing
a law and the President implementing such. It is impossible
for the 1987 Constitution to have granted Pres. Arroyo the
unbridled power to take over private businesses without Cong
ressional approval. It must be noted that congressional appr
oval is required even if she exercises her much bigger marti
al law powers. Furthermore, this is clearly reflected in Sec
. 23 (2) of Art. VI which expressly provides for emergency p
owers:
Sec. 23 (2) "In times of war or other national emergency,
the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a lim
ited period and subject to such restrictions as it may presc
ribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a
declared national policy.
Since the Constitution requires congressional approval of
the President's bigger powers of martial law and other natio
nal emergency powers, Proclamation 1017 cannot survive legal
ly and constitutionally without legislative participation. C
learly, there was no law or congressional concurrence with P
roclamation 1017 which was unilaterally declared by Pres. Ar
royo. After attacking the legislative power of Congress thro
ugh EO 464, Pres. Arroyo has, like Pres. Marcos, again arrog
ated unto herself one more legislative function.
Secondly, using Sec. 18, Art. VII of the Constitution does
not grant constitutionality to Proclamation 1017 not only b
ecause a 'state of emergency" is not found in that section b
ut also because of the absence of factual basis for such. Se
c. 18 states that :
Sec. 18 "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 s
uppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of
invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, h
e may for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the pri
vilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines
or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight h
ours from the proclamation of martial laws or the suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the Presiden
t shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congr
ess.
Nowhere in this provision is a "state of emergency" that g
rants her additional powers mentioned. Since the Constitutio
n expressly provided for 'emergency' powers in other provisi
ons, she cannot proclaim such emergency under Sec. 18. Shoul
d Pres. Arroyo insist that Proclamation 1017 is based under
her martial law powers in Sec. 18, then, such proclamation c
annot be deemed to have granted her additional powers. She i
s just giving notice that she is calling on the armed forces
to suppress rebellion or lawless violence within the framew
ork of her current and existing powers prior to the proclama
tion. She cannot interpret this as a grant of additional pow
ers to suppress rallies, arrest without warrants, or take ov
er media facilities.
Furthermore, there must be lawless violence, rebellion or
invasion before the President may call out the armed forces.
Rallies are not "lawless" violence but are legitimate exerc
ise of the peoples' rights under the Constitution. By deemin
g rallies as 'lawlessness' Pres. Arroyo has, like Pres. Marc
os, illegally considered the exercise of constitutional righ
ts an attack on her and national security.
Lastly, since the proclamation grants her no additional po
wer, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not suspend
ed during a state of emergency as the Supreme Court has said
so in Sanlakas vs. Angelo Reyes, to wit:
Should there be any "confusion" generated by the issuance
of Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4, we clarify
that, …, the mere declaration of a state of rebellion canno
t diminish or violate constitutionally protected rights. Ind
eed, if a state of martial law does not suspend the operatio
n of the Constitution or automatically suspend the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus, then it is with more reason t
hat a simple declaration of a state of rebellion could not b
ring about these conditions. At any rate, the presidential i
ssuances themselves call for the suppression of the rebellio
n "with due regard to constitutional rights."
Malacanang's and NTC's regulation of media: Illegal
The violent dispersal and the arrest of rallyists such as
Prof. Randy David and Atty. Argee Guevarra are clearly witho
ut legal basis. The right against arbitrary arrest under Art
. III of the Constitution has not been suspended. Pres. Arro
yo's declaration that 'all rally permits are revoked" is als
o illegal considering that Mayors and local governments are
the ones granted the power to grant or revoke these permits
under the law. Freedom of assembly is still operative.
The sanctions threatened against media with government clo
sure or takeover for 'covering' opposition activities is an
attack against press freedom, since freedom of the press sti
ll subsist. The warnings by executive officials are therefor
e illegal and subjects these officials to criminal and admin
istrative liabilities.
Pres. Gloria Arroyo has totally become a "Pres. Marcos", o
n the very day that Pres. Marcos was ousted from power twent
y years ago today. CODAL demands that Pres. Arroyo to respec
t the Bill of Rights and the Constitution despite her Procla
mation. Since Proclamation 1017 does not grant her additiona
l powers but merely causes further instability, we demand th
at she withdraws Proclamation 1017. CODAL calls on all lawye
rs to come out openly and publicly criticize the violation o
f the Constitution and peoples' rights. CODAL calls on lawye
rs to offer their legal services to the people who will beco
me victims of the implementation of Proclamation 1017. CODAL
also condemns the arrest in particular of Atty. Argee Gueva
rra who was not only exercising his constitutional rights bu
t also practicing his profession as a lawyer. CODAL urges me
mbers of the legal profession, including law students to com
e out and be part of the peoples assertion of their basic co
nstitutional rights against the impending threat of martial
rule.
Reference : Atty. Neri Javier Colmenares-SpokespersonDate
: 25 February 2006