To the beautiful Ms. Denise Laurel

Ms. Denise Laurel, (or someone commenting on her behalf) made the following corrections on my blog entry The Honorable Doy Laurel viz;

Hello Mr. Bonoan, I read your blog through a friend a few minutes ago and although it is all of three months late, thank you for the kind words about my Papa Doy. However, please allow me to correct your information on the question that was asked during the game show. The question was asked about the year when my grandfather was Vice-President of the Aquino Administration and not WHO was the vice president of that term. Please review the footage carefully, instead of using me as a foil to make your point. I believe your guest Cielo needs to be sure about the facts before offering her comments.

I do not intend to make this as an erratum. I am torn between being an online journalist who should stand by his words and a gentleman who should concede to a lady. But I am more oriented towards my courteous inclinations. Moreover, as already blurted out, it has been three months since this specific episode was shown and my short memory does not serve me well to exactly recall what the actual question was. Nor do I have means to verify what I believe I have heard and watched that particular day. Nevertheless, these considerations are no longer necessary as what I have mentioned in the beginning, my polite leanings urge me to accept Miss Denise Laurel’s version of the story. To besmirch a Laurel, is not one of my intentions. Rather, I only wished to magnify the political prowess and career of one great man and that is, Miss Denise’s Papa Doy.

However, as I am sincerely extending my apologies to Miss Laurel, as an on-line journalist that I am, I am not letting this chance to discuss her latter assertions in her comment which are highly technical and legal. To quote, she wrote:

“The reason why I hesitated to answer the question on the date of his being a vice president was because there had been a bit of discussion on when he assumed the vice presidency. Some quarters say that he won as vice president during the snap elections against Tolentino and therefore should have been proclaimed prior to EDSA I. Others say that the revolutionary government which was proclaimed after Marcos left the country for Honolulu was the date to determine his assumption. And of course there is the oath taking ceremony. To date, the debate goes on. I hope this gives you a little more insight on who Denise Laurel is.”

As a fervent student of the law, I believe that this confusion had been finally settled in the case of Lawyers League v. Aquino (May 22, 1986) wherein the Supreme Court ruled that the Aquino government is revolutionary in nature. (see also Estrada v. Arroyo) Therefore, the oath taking which took place at the Club Filipino on February 25, 1986 serves as the reckoning period for the Aquino administration. (Be it noted that while Cory-Doy run as President and VP respectively under the auspices of the 1973 Constitution, they finished the race outside of it.)

I hope this misunderstanding will not in any way affect present or future relations with the Laurel family which I hold in high esteem.


NB: visit VP Doy Laurel's official website. Thank you to the Laurel Family for posting my blog entry.

Picture courtesy of pinoyfansclub.com

The Clutches of Martial Law

It has been more than a month or so since my last entry in this site which, owing to the nature of my chosen endeavor I have no choice but to overhaul my priorities all over again. I hate to admit but for the past few months I was largely preoccupied with personal cobwebs or what I call the “viruses of the mind” which prevented me from doing what I love to do best. And so first things first, deliberately, I expunge it out of my system-good riddance as they say! Anyway, since then so many critical issues, be it legal or political, have been the center stage of coffee table and classroom discussions. I must say that during my “self-imposed interregnum”, every time an issue pops up, I always felt the sudden itch to express my ideas and write something about it. But as soon as I sat down and put my hands on the computer, the piles of documents in my bedroom seemed to say that earning a living should be on the top of my list. In simple terms, blogging then should step aside even on Sundays. As trite as it may seem, but for every rule there is always an exception. Today, I will break my fast and avail myself of the much needed excuse from my daily routine. Unfortunately the pile of documents and reading materials will have to wait for an hour or two otherwise I would be in a limbo by tomorrow. Obviously, the declaration of martial law in some parts of Maguindanao requires more than a succinct “shoutout” in my facebook account. This is where I suppose, the medium of blogging finds superiority over social networking sites in terms of meaningful and well-informed opinion. Clearly it entails a lengthy and incisive discussion on the issue for it concerns more that anything else, the curtailment of cherished liberties so protected by the constitution. Not to be presumptuous or anything, but constitutional and political issues are among the areas which I find very fascinating because it touches the very core of what it is like to be a citizen of a nation. Let us now educate ourselves on the constitutional underpinnings of the martial law declaration following the gruesome massacre in Maguindanao.

Not all people can readily understand what the essence of martial law is nor its ramifications and safeguards under the constitution. Chances are, people from different walks of life deemed martial law as synonymous to the name of President Ferdinand Marcos. In fact as evidenced of a “hangover” even lawyers, the senior ones in particular, understood the concept of martial law in line with rules under the 1973 (Marcos] Constitution. Although the traditional concepts under the previous constitutions are one and the same, the present rules under the 1987 Constitution have been improved and crafted to strike a proper balance between two competing spheres, state power and individual rights. (i.e. Can the President suspend the writ of habeas corpus without the declaration of martial law? Or vice versa. More on the checks and balances later.) Luckily as a law student, I came to know martial law as one of the extraordinary powers vested in the Commander-in-chief of the armed forces, in which case the President, to quell actual invasion or rebellion “when the public safety requires it.” But what is martial law really? What is its nature and bases on the whole constitutional scheme? In my blog post entitled, The Power that lies in the Little Girl’s Hands, I made the following observation,” Martial law is essentially founded upon the police power of the state. Joking aside, what is being referred to here is not the power vested with the police force or the PNP. Obviously, this has something to do with one of the inherent powers of the state. To be clear, the textual definition of police power is that, “power vested in the legislature by the constitution to make and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws…as they shall be the judge to be for the good and welfare of the state and of the subjects of the same.” The idea of martial law is to protect “public safety” against invasion or rebellion which in essence, is one of the concerns of police power. For these reasons, though martial law is often viewed as a monstrous power to be avoided, it likewise has its noble and necessary objectives to preserve law and order. Having learned from the lessons of history, the framers thought it wise to retain this power under the 1987 Constitution, but not without expressed restrictions and safeguards unlike the previous constitutions.

The salient provision on the “Commander-chief-powers” of the President is excessively long. Without a doubt, the new commander-in-chief provision is one of the outstanding features of the 1987 Constitution. Under said provision, while the original authority to declare martial law rest on the Executive branch, there is however an explicit command for checks and balances to achieve the desired result. As will be seen later, the Congress and the Supreme Court have significant roles to play when the nation is under the clutches of martial rule.

The power to declare martial law flows from the “Commander-in-chief” powers of the president. By virtue of Section 18 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, the president is bestowed with a sequence of graduated powers from the most to the least benign. The most benign power refers to the “Calling-out power” of the President. Thus, “whenever it becomes necessary” he (President) may call out the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. But what will happen if in the exercise of the “Calling-out power” the President fails to suppress the existence of lawless violence or prevent an impending invasion or rebellion? Faced with this kind of situation, the President can now resort to the least benign powers in his commander-in-chief arsenal to quell any actual invasion or rebellion against the state.

These two extraordinary powers are; (1) the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or (2) place the entire country or any part thereof under martial law. Unlike the “calling-out power,” the grounds for the proclamation of martial law are at best limited. Thus, the constitution is unequivocal when it states that, there must be an actual invasion or rebellion and “when the public safety requires it.” The initial determination whether there is an actual invasion or rebellion will have to be decided by the President as the Commander-in-chief. But the story does not end there. After the proclamation, the President will now have to persuade Congress on the soundness of his actions. At this point, the 1987 Constitution clearly delineates the participation of Congress to check on the possible abuses of power by the chief executive when acting as Commander-in-chief.

As mentioned earlier, the new commander-in-chief provision under the 1987 Constitution is quite long. Nonetheless let us capture the gist on the extent of the President’s military powers, the martial law provision in particular.

After the initial determination on the existence of an actual invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, the President can now place the country or any part thereof under martial law. The duration of such proclamation shall not exceed sixty (60) days otherwise it shall be automatically lifted. Within forty-eight (48) hours following said proclamation, the President is obligated to submit a report, whether in person or in writing, to the Congress. If not in session, owing to the urgency of the situation, Congress must convene within 24 hours without need of a call. And in that regular or special session, Congress by a majority vote of all its members and voting jointly, may either revoke said proclamation or upon the initiative of the President, extend the period of the proclamation. By this time, it is Congress who will determine the duration of the proclamation depending on the persistence of the invasion or rebellion and when public safety calls for such extension.

From the wordings of the 1987 Constitution you can easily discern the intent of the framers when they drafted the Commander-in-chief provision-a recognition of the separation of powers principle. Both the President and Congress must agree to a certain extent that there is indeed a factual basis for the declaration of martial law. To which, as may be seen later, the Supreme Court in the exercise of judicial review can validly inquire and if found wanting, it will not hesitate to make the hammer fall and heavily! If you will observe, although the President has the sole power to declare martial law under the constitution, Congress may revoke said proclamation and it cannot be set aside by the President. In the same manner, Congress cannot extend the period of martial law motu propio, the initiative must always come from the President as the Commander-in-chief. In simple parlance, there is an inherent “give and take” relationship between the two co-equal departments of government in order to safeguard the power structure envisioned in the constitution.

Given the above discussion, in the end the buck stops with the Judicial branch mainly, the Supreme Court. Let us examine then the function of the Supreme Court under the new rule.

On historical note, Marcos Supreme Court in the case of Aquino v. Enrile had put an imprimatur on the legitimacy of the Sept. 21 proclamation. That infamous case drastically modified the original scope and effects of martial law as embodied in the 1935 Constitution. Now, all of these are purely of historical and academic value because of the new provisions in the 1987 Constitution abandoning the doctrine laid down in the Aquino case

As the bastion of the rights and liberties of the people, the Supreme Court also has an indispensable role especially in times of national crisis. Par. 3 of Section 18 Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution says, “The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty (30) days from its filing.” Before the birth of the 1987 Constitution, the power of the court to review the “determination” or “judgment” of the President as Commander-in-chief was a constitutional “no-no”-a clear violation of the time-honored principle of separation of powers. It is often viewed as a forbidden territory of the courts. Now this is no longer the rule. Although traditionally a “political question,” the 1987 Constitution has clearly abandoned this rule in favor of a much libertarian approach by making it a justiciable controversy. Hence, any citizen can now question the sufficiency of the factual basis of the martial law proclamation.

It should be borne in mind that mere proclamation of martial law does not automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus much less the operation of the constitution. During the state of martial law, civil courts and legislative bodies shall remain open. In line with this, military courts and agencies are not conferred jurisdiction over civilians where the civil courts are functioning. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall only apply to persons facing charges of rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion. Remarkably, any person arrested for such offenses must be judicially charged within three (3) days otherwise he shall be released.

Tomorrow we will be expecting petitions filed before the Supreme Court questioning the legality of GMA’s martial law declaration in Maguindanao. I surmise that the petitions will challenge the factual bases for the imposition. Simply put, does the situation in Maguindanao constitute “invasion” or “rebellion” which will warrant the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the imposition of martial law? From the looks of it the situation in Maguindanao could only fall within the definition of “lawless violence,” which is not among the situations contemplated for declaring martial law under the Constitution. Note that the martial law provision clearly states, “In case of invasion, or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.” As explained above, the President is armed with a sequence of graduated powers from his Commander-in-chief arsenal. Although initially the President makes the determination as to the existence of lawless violence, invasion or rebellion, the Supreme Court in proper cases can invalidate the imposition. Fingers crossed for now!

A Political First

Today I would like to write about campus politics, if I may. Back in college, I too had my fair share of triumphs and a bunch of disappointments as a budding student leader. As you may well know, I hail from a place where politics is synonymous with money, racial domination, and a little bit of assassination. During my time, school politics was not much of a difference. It has all the necessary ingredients of 'real politik.' Backroom-dealing, double-speaking and yes, horse-trading too were all part of this impish game called "campus politics." No wonder why most of my erstwhile colleagues are now making their respective niches on local politics. I guess, campus politics from the ol' days really helped them a lot in terms of training and experience. As for me, I had a change of heart and landed in another field but that of course, is a different story.

The day I enter school politics was the start of my transformation. Who would have thought that I would shift my interest to academics and school politics? I was a happy-go-lucky guy. I prefer grunge music over political theories. I had no political blood running in my veins. Even my mother could not believe at first that his prodigal son had just hanged his guitar on the wall and finally said goodbye to his teenage dream of becoming a rockstar. Good grief, my political science professor saw something in me. I don’t really know at that time what she meant when she said I had the potential to excel in academics. And so she groomed me as a student leader and persuaded me to run for school senator.

At the outset, joining school politics was a perfectly natural thing for me. Some say I was destined to be a pompous school politician because of my outspoken convictions as a student. That may be true, but I was also a friendly creature according to my kindergarten teacher. But let me add a caveat. (Pardon my legalese tone) I have a monkish lifestyle. Hanging out with few friends comes once in a blue moon. For a guy who values privacy more than anything else, I’m not quite sure if I could bargain it away just like that. Entering campus politics I thought meant “plastikan” with fellow students. Although I had the ample experience of being in front of the “hooting throng,” this time it would be entirely different if not strange. For one, being on stage then was easy provided I had my signature RJ guitar with me. But I mustered enough courage this time since I don’t want to disappoint the faculty teachers of the political science department. I vowed to take the lead if only to inspire others to do the same.

I can still remember the day when the presumptuous presidential candidate invited me to join his political party. He was full of the usual platitudes befitting a traditional politico. All the while he thought I was not privy with his kind of politics. But he was careful enough with his choices of words making it appear less manipulative. I had no choice really but to support his candidacy. Apparently, it was a three-cornered presidential election with two contenders belonging to same department-the education bloc and the other from the political science department. Following the old Roman strategy of “divide et impera” or divide and rule, I thought it wise to run under the latter. And so to solidify our position, I finally said yes. It never occurred to me that our senatorial line-up was a complete mess. Most of my party-mates were better off as clowns and street buffoons. Surely I thought, even with the best decisive political strategy there’s no way we could survive the campus elections. But the Machiavellian in me sensed an opportunity to bolster my image by standing on the shoulders of the clowns, if you know what I mean.

My humble alma mater has three (3) campuses situated in three different municipalities. My decision to join a well entrenched political party was partly because of geographical consideration. Who would want to join a race without a racehorse? In political terms, that would be a sure-fire political hara kiri. And not to mention the racial profiling if you are a Christian candidate. Muslim votes comprise more than half of the voting population in my school. A political party with Muslim candidates would surely help you familiarize and reach out even to the marginalized students in the isolated areas. These factors led me to conclude that I had to blend-in otherwise I would lose the elections big time.

I practically ran for school senator under a principled and idealistic platform. Instead of the usual political blah blah, I envisioned to improve the quality of parliamentary rules in the Student Council. My idea was too remote and peculiar since students could not relate with the kind of reforms I was bound to do if elected. During campaign sorties, I took the pains of introducing parliamentary procedures and its intrinsic function in the inner workings of any legislative body. Sounding almost like a pastor in the pulpit, I explained the dual purpose of my advocacy. First, to improve the quality of deliberation and proceedings in the council, and second, to have well crafted council resolutions which would truly reflect the interests of the students. I saw to it that after my political lecture, students were allowed to ask questions which would enhance student’s participation in the process. Soon I learned the technique on how to encourage even the tamest students to speak their minds and courageously ask serious questions. I made it a point that for every classroom, I would exude the aura of an educated common man whom they could rely and approach any time if elected.

In one of our campaign sorties, I promised the students that the newly constructed building of the Student Council belongs to them-our masters. Touche! Touche! I was already echoing President Magsaysay’s populist platform. In that particular campus, I was surprised by the spontaneous reaction of the students everywhere I went. I was practically mobbed. Most of them kept on chanting my name short of a mantra. And mind you, I was only aiming for the position of school senator not the presidency. Soon I became more and more familiar with the rules of school politics. I learned to smile even with people whom I secretly hated before. I also learned the art of handshake and of course how could I forget, the eye contact. In short, I quickly developed into a traditional politician or trapo.

Finally the big day came. In some designated precincts at the main campus, I was the frontrunner in the senatorial race. Unfortunately, when the votes from the distant campus arrived, I was surprised. I didn’t get any votes! It was a clear miscalculation on my part because I failed to visit that particular campus during the campaign. I simply relied on my political party to represent my advocacy. I learned that like local politics, campus politics too requires a personal touch with the voters. You have to socialize with them, laugh with them, eat with them and help them with their personal needs as students. Advocacy can take its backseat, what matters most is your presence as a candidate. And so from top 3 of the senatorial race, I ended up on the 11th spot much to my dismay.

As predicted, I was the sole survivor of our political party. Our standard bearer, despite his superb experience in political strategy, lost his presidential bid in an unprecedented three-cornered fight. The voters simply dismissed him as someone too ambitious to become student government president. For my part, I suppose my youthful idealism helped. I convince majority of the school population about my sincerity and my desire to introduce honest-to-goodness reforms in the student council.

At the council, I was surprised to learn that I was practically alone in the wilderness. While there were three of us who belonged to the opposition bloc, the two seemed impervious to the numbers game in the council. They were more concerned with their own agenda. This however did not affect my mind-set as a robust school senator. Soon, the distribution for various committees was announced. It was the administration’s first declaration of war against the opposition. The three of us found ourselves in a ditch. I was assigned to head the inutile and nominal body called the Ethics Committee. Obviously, I was under the impression that ethics and politics can be one and the same. Every time I called for a committee hearing no one cared to appear much less attend the meetings. Sensing that I was furious over the behavior of the council members, the council secretary advised me not to take things so seriously. I let it pass hoping that my next move would be a big splash.

My first initiative then as duly elected school Senator was to review the outdated internal rules of the council. I deemed it necessary before we could get down to business seriously. But the obstinate members of the administration party shoot down my proposal by majority vote. Once again, I was completely demolished. Since most of them were already on their second and third terms as school senators, they would invoke “self-invented” internal rules to shut me up. Some even accused me of grandstanding during sessions every time I would raise settled parliamentary tenets. But I was up for the challenge. Having mastered the art of parliamentary rules by heart, I managed to score some points. In one of our council sessions, my finest hour I guess, I stood up and denounce the administration’s well-orchestrated move to discredit me. I lambasted the members of the majority for acting as rubberstamps of the council president. They listened intently and waited for their turns to hit me back but I managed to delay the proceedings until the session adjourned. This tactic went on for days. Soon, they too felt that all their proposals never reached the stage of voting because I would raise various well-grounded objections. The result would always end up in a deadlock. I was bound not to compromise my advocacy as a school senator. At the risk of calling me a “pain in the ass” I stood my ground confidently. Not until the timely intervention of the council president. He was quite influential being the son of a local public official. More than that, he had the unwavering support of no less than the incumbent Congressman at that time who for some reason, was very much concerned with school politics.

Together with his parrot-like executive secretary, the Council president paid me a visit at my residence. After a few beating around the bushes conversation, he made his point almost directly: “I want you to join my administration.” Sounds like the “real thing” Isn’t it? Politely, I laid down my position on the crisis besetting the Council. I expressed my frustrations over the actuations of majority of the members, who were his cohorts in the Council. Initially I said that we could never perform our job as Council members because the majority was more concerned on party affiliations than principles. I made it clear to him that all I really wanted was to elevate the stature of the Student Council as a premiere student organization. But more than this, I expressed my intention to make the Council a highly-competitive student body not only within the province but also all throughout the region. It may sound a far-fetch idea but I sincerely believe that with all the kidnapping and killing incidents reported in the media, all we could do to help our province was through academic ventures. But how could we do this I ask, since the majority refuse to support my ideas in the Council. He agreed and offered his hand as a gesture of unity. Then I proposed a compromise, sort of a win-win solution for the opposing sides. As a council member, I was fully aware of the privileges attached to my position as school senator. I vowed to use it in order to advance my advocacy. In exchange for my conditional support, he promised to approve and provide adequate funds for every school-related regional seminar during his term. For me, it was our opportunity to compete academically with other reputable schools within the region. This would also help boost our morale as true blue Basilenos in the field of academics.

True to his word, Mr. President brought unity within the council. Except for a few parliamentary outbursts, sessions were now more dignified and peaceful. The quality of deliberations too improved because of my persistence to raise the standards of council debates. From then on, the Council became a pro-active student organization. Later, owing to the nature of our position, we were also handpicked to represent our school in various academic seminars within the region. Most of the time, we would go head to head with student leaders from different universities and colleges in Mindanao. Each and every encounter would be intense, exciting and challenging. Because of our legislative training in the Council, I earned the monicker as the “outstanding parliamentarian” in one of the seminars we have attended. These were only some of the Council’s modest achievements in a span of one year but it really meant a lot to me. It was, after all, the reforms I envisioned for my humble alma mater. I just hope that the seeds we have planted fell on fertile grounds and will ultimately bear fruit in the years to come.

Indeed, experience is a great teacher. I learned so much about politics because of this brief yet exciting experience. For one, I am glad that during my journey as a student leader I never compromised my principles and ideals in favor of personal gains. I managed to come out of the snake pit called “politics” unscathed, uncorrupted and morally intact. But of course, that was school politics. I still keep in touch with some of my friends who are now enjoying the real game of fame and power. I must admit though, that some influential quarters in our town encourage me to throw my hat in the political arena for next year’s local elections. I suppose they think, and I agree with them, that youthful idealism will help foster the much needed reforms in the local political landscape.. But I turned them down for personal reasons. After years of contemplation, I still prefer to work in the academe and hopefully join the noblest profession someday. (And earn the much coveted A-T-T-Y before my name!) I have made my choice, and I know it is the right one. Till next time!

CONGRATULATIONS!!!

"Wala sa design yan, its the substance!"

I never imagined that my blog would be nominated much less chosen as one of the finalists for the upcoming Philippine Blog Awards. But they just did, and it makes me proud to be a Filipino cyberspace writer. And to my worthy opponents in the advocacy category, best of luck guys!

In lieu of this, I express my utmost gratitude to Ms.Vivian, Librarian of the Adamson University Thomas More Law Library for the nomination. The 10 finalists for best advocacy blog are as follows:

1.Autism Society Philippines
2.CyberRon
3.DISCOURSES OF A FREE MIND
4.Fide Quarens Intellectum
5.Filipino Deaf from the Eyes of a Hearing Person
6.Filipino Freethinkers
7.Foreclosure Philippines
8.Gloria Macapagal Arroyo RESIGN!
9.Greenpeace Southeast Asia
10.Nurses Notes

The awarding ceremony for Luzon will be held on October 9 at PETA Theatre, Quezon City; while the ceremonies for Visayas and Mindanao will be held on October 18 at Ayala City Sports, Cebu Business Park and October 24 at Pearlmont Hotel, Limketkai Drive, Cagayan de Oro City respectively.

A warm thank you to the organizers of Philippine Blog Awards!!!

Mabuhay ang mga Pinoy Bloggers!!! Goodluck! Fingers crossed!