转录自苦劳网
http://61.222.52.195/news/database/Interface/Detailstander.asp?ID=110553
■苦劳论坛2006/02/28
◎作者：Neri Javier Colmenares
（自由辩护律师、COUNSELS FOR THE DEFENSE OF LIBERTIES，
CODAL发言人）
／施逸翔译（东吴大学人权学程）
　　CODAL谴责艾若育总统最近颁布1017号文告以宣布戒严的违宪
之举。当年马可仕（Ferdinand Marcos）总统在戒严时期，尽管在政
权已经失去民心的情况下，为了紧咬政权不放而颁布文告，而艾若育
的文告跟马可仕的文告没有什么两样。
　　首先，用来作为1017号文告之基础的宪法第12条第 17款，最
初是马可仕总统在他执政期间为了赋予自己能接管私人企业的权力，
而打造的戒严法条款。第17款规定：“在国家非常时期，当其时为了
公众利益之必须，国家在危急时以及在此情况下生效的合理条款规定
下，可以暂时接管或指挥任何将影响到公众利益的私人公司或企业之
营运。”
　　艾若育总统并不等同国家，而且宪法也不可能允许总统被授予
属于“国家”绝对的权力，尤其是在人民已经有了马可仕总统戒严法
的经验之后。1987年的宪法中，充满了确保国会有权检验总统权力的
条款，其内涵在于只有在国会通过法案的情况下，才授予总统权力。
因此，第17款中明文规定的“国家”，意指国会颁布法案，而总统依
法执行之。对于1987年的宪法而言，不可能在没有国会的批准下，授
予艾若育总统可以接管私人企业这种毫无限制的权力。需注意的是，
即使她行使更加强大的戒严法权力，也必须经由国会的批准。此外，
这件事明确地反映在宪法第六条第23款第2项，其中清楚地规定了非
常时期的权力：
　　第23款第2项：“在战争时期或其他国家紧急情况下，国会依
法可以授权总统，在一段时效内而且要服从该法规定的限制，去行使
必要的权力，并适切地实现所宣布的国家政策。”
　　既然宪法要求，只有国会才能批准总统较强大的戒严法权力以
及国家在紧急情况下的其他权力，那么1017号文告就不能在没有立法
的程序下，合法合宪地存在。明显地，1017号文告只是艾若育总统单
方面的宣布，它并没有受到法律或国会的赞同。艾若育总统在靠着46
4行政命令侵害国会的立法权力后，就像马可仕总统一样，已经再一
次擅自为她自己取得一个更多的立法机制。
　　第二，按照宪法第7条第18款，就不会给予1017号文告合宪性
，这不只是因为这一款里根本找不到“紧急情况”这样的字眼，也因
为完全欠缺“紧急情况”的事实基础。
　　第18款规定：“总统必须是菲律宾三军的最高指挥官，每当必
要之时，他可以召集三军武力预防或镇压非法的暴力、侵略或叛乱。
在侵略或叛乱的情况下，当其时为了公众利益之必须，他在不超过60
天的期限内，可以暂时取消人身保护令的基本权利，或让菲律宾进入
戒严的状态。在颁布戒严法或暂时取消人身保护令之基本权利的48小
时内，总统必须亲自提出一份报告，或以书面报告递交国会。”
　　在这项条款中，完全没有提到可以授予她额外权力的“紧急情
况”。既然宪法在其他条款中明确地规定“紧急情况”下的权力，那
么她就不能按第18款宣布这样的紧急情况。艾若育总统竟然坚持1017
号文告是奠基于第18款，规定她拥有戒严法的权力，那么这样的文告
就不能被视为可以授予她额外的权力。她只是在通告国人，她现有的
权力和既存的权力优先于文告，并在这样的架构下，号召军力以镇压
叛乱或非法的暴力。她并不能把这解释为授予额外的权力，容许她镇
压集会活动、非法逮捕、或接管媒体事业。
　　此外，在总统召集军力之前，必须真的有非法的暴力、叛乱和
侵略才行。集会活动并不是“非法的”暴力，而是人民在宪法的保障
下，正当地行使他的权利。视集会为“非法”的艾若育总统，就像马
可仕总统一样，已经非法地把对于行使宪法保障的权利，视为针对她
的攻击和对于国家安全的侵害。
　　最后，既然文告没有授予她额外的权力，在“紧急情况”期间
，宪法和权利清单就没有被搁置，正如同最高法院在“Sanlakas vs.
Angelo Reyes”一案中已经提过的那样，即：
　　“竟然在427号文告和第4号通令的颁布下，没有引发任何的“
混乱情况”，我们便获得澄清……仅仅只是宣称有叛乱的状况，也不
能缩减或违反宪法保障的权利。甚至，如果戒严的状态并没有搁置宪
法的运作，或自动搁置人身保护令的基本权利，那么就有更多的理由
支持，只是宣称有叛乱的情况，也不能造成那些条件限制。无论如何
，总统的颁布命令本身，如果需要镇压叛乱，就必须“适切地关涉到
宪法保障的权利”。”
　　马拉坎南宫和国家通讯委员会对于媒体的控管：是非法的 以
暴力的方式驱散和逮捕像是Randy David教授和Argee Guevarra律师
这样的集会人士，明显地根本就没有法律上的基础。在宪法第三条的
保障下，反抗任意逮捕的权利尚未被终止。艾若育总统宣布“取消所
有集会的许可令”，这也是非法的，因为只有市长和当地政府依法才
有权力准许或取消这些许可令。集会自由依然是有效的权利。
　　以政府的勒令歇业或因为“报导”反对势力的活动而遭政府接
收的制裁，来威胁媒体，这是对于言论自由的迫害，因为言论自由依
然存在。因此，行政官员的警告其实是非法的，而且这让他们有成为
罪犯的条件，并需负起行政的责任。
　　就在20年前马可仕总统垮台的这一天，艾若育总统已经完全变
成另一位“马可仕总统”。CODAL要求，仅管艾若育总统宣布了她的
文告，也要尊重权利清单和宪法。既然1017号文告并不授予她额外的
权力，而仅仅只是让国家陷入进一步的不稳定，我们要求她必须撤销
1017号文告。CODAL号召所有律师们要公开站出来批评违宪和侵害人
民权利的行为。CODAL号召律师们要给予人民法律上的协助，因为人
民将来很可能会成为1017号文告下的受害者。CODAL也特别谴责对于A
rgee Guevarra的逮捕行动，因为他不只是在行使他的宪法权利，而
且也是在实践他作为一名律师的专业。CODAL强烈呼吁具有法律专业
的成员们，包括法律系的学生们，请你们站出来并站在人民这一边，
维护他们宪法保障的基本权利，以对抗戒严统治下一步步逼近的威胁
。
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