In the aftermath of David v. Gloria Arroyo, which had condemned the specific actions of the executive department in the name of Proclamation 1017, the Philippine National Police, through its spokesman, has said that the police was just following orders. This line of defense was first employed during the Nuremberg Trials. Called the Nuremberg Defense, wherein the primary reasoning is that a soldier is just following orders and should not be held responsible for such acts.

Mr. Samuel Pagdilao, PNP spokesman, said “These were not done by the PNP to its liking. We were just following the proclamation.” Which means one thing – the PNP is now passing the buck to the Fortress by the Pasig. And that is why Mr. Eduardo Nachura and his men are studying whether to appeal David v. Ermita, since obviously, the problem will fall in the laps of Gloria Arroyo. I see Nachura’s action as looking for an escape route for Arroyo.

Also, Mr. Vidal Querol, head of NCR police, was interviewed at ANC. He was trying to advance another escape route by trying to point out that the arrests of Randolf David and Ronald Llamas on February 24, 2006, were legal and were made because of violations of Batas Pambansa 880, the subject of another SC decision Bayan v. Ermita. Let me quote the ABS-CBN News:

“Kapag binasa nating mabuti ‘yan [SC ruling] ang sinasabi ay bawal po ang pag-aresto kung hindi ang dahilan ay lawless violence, invasion, rebellion, and violation of Batas Pambansa 880 (If we read the ruling properly, it says that it is prohibited to conduct arrests unless there is lawless violence, invasion, rebellion and violation of Batas Pambansa 880),” he said.

Mr. Querol is now equating lawless violence with violations of BP880. I will leave that for lawyers to debate on. But the SC has already stated that the arrests of David and Llamas were illegal and unconstitutional. Let me quote the decision:

In the Brief Account submitted by petitioner David, certain facts are established: first, he was arrested without warrant; second, the PNP operatives arrested him on the basis of PP 1017; third, he was brought at Camp Karingal, Quezon City where he was fingerprinted, photographed and booked like a criminal suspect; fourth, he was treated brusquely by policemen who “held his head and tried to push him” inside an unmarked car; fifth, he was charged with Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang No. 880 and Inciting to Sedition; sixth, he was detained for seven (7) hours; and seventh, he was eventually released for insufficiency of evidence.
xxx
On the basis of the relevant and uncontested facts narrated earlier, it is also pristine clear that (1) the warrantless arrest of petitioners Randolf S. David and Ronald Llamas; (2) the dispersal of the rallies and warrantless arrest of the KMU and NAFLU-KMU members; (3) the imposition of standards on media or any prior restraint on the press; and (4) the warrantless search of the Tribune offices and the whimsical seizures of some articles for publication and other materials, are not authorized by the Constitution, the law and jurisprudence. Not even by the valid provisions of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5.
xxx
The warrantless arrest of Randolf S. David and Ronald Llamas; the dispersal and warrantless arrest of the KMU and NAFLU-KMU members during their rallies, in the absence of proof that these petitioners were committing acts constituting lawless violence, invasion or rebellion and violating BP 880; the imposition of standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press, as well as the warrantless search of the Tribune offices and whimsical seizure of its articles for publication and other materials, are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Mr. Querol is effectively saying that the SC was wrong. I dare say that he was spewing those words to defend the police from prosecution and probable conviction on violations of human rights. I challenge Mr. Querol to express his opinion through the Solicitor General in an appeal to the Supreme Court, instead of going to the media trying to convince people through subterfuge.

Another defense, as advanced by Mr. Pagdilao, is that the police acted in good faith and its actions were done in “prudent and scrupulous observance” of the rule of law and human rights, as quoted in INQ7.net. Rule of law? Scrupulous observance of human rights? Didn’t the Supreme Court just said that the acts of the police during Proc. 1017 were unconstitutional? I think a thorough retraining of the entire PNP is needed.

(Personally, I am happy I was not in the shoes of Ricky Carandang when he was interviewing Querol. It’s hard to restrain oneself when hearing someone spewing lies with a straight face. BTW, Mr. Carandang has not posted in a while, thus you will not see any post on his home page.)

Should we expect heads to roll? Should we expect fall guys to be paraded? Nope. Even the Fortress by the Pasig was not sorry about the issue.

---

I find it lamentable that the lawyers of the petitioners in David v. Arroyo did not even contest the facts that the government specified that lead to the issuance of Proc. 1017. This made the Supreme Court uphold the proclamation. That’s what the petitioner’s lawyers should explain. Atty. Aceron lamented this fact.

Have just began reading the decision. By just reading the statement of facts you would know how the Court had decided. This, for me, is the deciding point:

During the oral arguments held on March 7, 2006, the Solicitor General specified the facts leading to the suance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5. Significantly, there was no refutation from petitioners’ counsels. (Emphasis made by the Court)

And thus, the Court says:

Petitioners failed to show that President Arroyo’s exercise of the calling-out power, by issuing PP 1017, is totally bereft of factual basis. A reading of the Solicitor General’s Consolidated Comment and Memorandum shows a detailed narration of the events leading to the issuance of PP 1017, with supporting reports forming part of the records. Mentioned are the escape of the Magdalo Group, their audacious threat of the Magdalo D-Day, the defections in the military, particularly in the Philippine Marines, and the reproving statements from the communist leaders. There was also the Minutes of the Intelligence Report and Security Group of the Philippine Army showing the growing alliance between the NPA and the military. Petitioners presented nothing to refute such events. Thus, absent any contrary allegations, the Court is convinced that the President was justified in issuing PP 1017 calling for military aid.

The SC has decided that Proc. 1017 was constitutional pertaining to its provisions calling on the police and the military to prevent or suppress violence. Parts of the said proclamation calling on the military to enforce laws not related to lawless violence as well as decrees promulgated by the President are deemed unconstitutional.

WHEREFORE, the Petitions are partly granted. The Court rules that PP 1017 is CONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it constitutes a call by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence. However, the provisions of PP 1017 commanding the AFP to enforce laws not related to lawless violence, as well as decrees promulgated by the President, are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. In addition, the provision in PP 1017 declaring national emergency under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution is CONSTITUTIONAL, but such declaration does not authorize the President to take over privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest without prior legislation.

G.O. No. 5 is CONSTITUTIONAL since it provides a standard by which the AFP and the PNP should implement PP 1017, i.e. whatever is “necessary and appropriate actions and measures to suppress and prevent acts of lawless violence.” Considering that “acts of terrorism” have not yet been defined and made punishable by the Legislature, such portion of G.O. No. 5 is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The warrantless arrest of Randolf S. David and Ronald Llamas; the dispersal and warrantless arrest of the KMU and NAFLU-KMU members during their rallies, in the absence of proof that these petitioners were committing acts constituting lawless violence, invasion or rebellion and violating BP 880; the imposition of standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press, as well as the warrantless search of the Tribune offices and whimsical seizure of its articles for publication and other materials, are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

As usual, the decision ended with partial granting of petitions, as the Court did with the other issues. Solomonic? Yeah. Arroyo et al getting a slap in the wrists – using marshmallow sticks.

In today’s issue of the Inquirer, Manuel Quezon III ended his column:

And yet, the overwhelming number of our people stubbornly insist on political solutions to economic and social problems: the ballot remains the magic bullet. For its adherence to this view, the public is portrayed as either selfish, or silly, or even suicidal. But what if the people are right? And those insisting on the other solutions are wrong? As Rizal asked, what then?

What then, indeed? Unfortunately, the magic bullet called ballot has long lost its magic. It is laudable that the people believe in the power of the ballot, of choice. However, the reality of the times shows that this belief – that the people has a choice – has long been subverted several ways, with the people always being the loser.

One, the case of the 2004 elections shows that anyone who has the machinery and the guts (or kapal ng mukha, if you’re inclined to call it as such) can manipulate the outcome of the electoral process, subverting the choice of the people. And with the system of electoral protest/appeal stacked in favor of the so-called winner, the electoral system has become a joke of a democratic process. What then should the people, whose choices were not heard, should do?

Two, the gullibility and susceptibility of the people to guns, goons, and gold – the 3Gs of elections – partially negates the view that an election is the voice of the people. That the people can easily be influenced to choose against their own will, or maybe because of their indifference, make the elections lose its credibility. What then?

It has now become a myth, the power of the ballot.

What then, is the solution to this injustice? Probably none, unless the people themselves realize that clinging to ideas that are clearly and obviously not working is not the solution to their problems. They choose to live in this delusion. I now pose this question: what if the people is wrong? What then?