Supreme Court 1017 Constitutional but..

[samsungster]

---

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the constitutionality of President Arroyo’s Proclamation 1017 but censured actions performed by the police in implementing the law including raids on media offices and warrantless arrests.

The justices ruled as unconstitutional actions performed by the police armed with PP 1017’s accompanying General Order 5.

Mrs. Arroyo issued the proclamation declaring a state of national emergency on February 24 after her administration foiled a plot to remove her from power. The President lifted the order a week later.

The 15-man court will issue its ruling later Wednesday.

A Manila Times source earlier called this a “win-win Solomonic” ruling, that is to say the Malacañan side wins because PP 1017 is declared to be constitutional, but oppositionist politicians, human-rights groups and prodemocracy militants also win because the abuses of the police and even possibly the General Order 5 itself will be declared wrong.

The decision, the source told The Times, will probably cite Section 18 of Article VII of the Constitution, which states that “the President shall be the commander in chief of all the 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.”

[FK]

i think there was no question as to wether the president can issue such proclamation.... but what was questioned was the actions that were taken after the proclamation.

as you can see in all of those orders, policy and proclamations in malacañang that was questioned it clearly shows that they will use a legal move and bend it way its limits to use it in their personal gains. In short... ABUSE OF POWER.

[baron]

^ That was the main issue raised to the Supreme Court: Whether or not Proclamation 1017 is legal. The Supreme Court ruled that the proclamation is constitutional on the basis of the political situation that entangled us during the time the president issued such proclamation.

It is but evident that the Supreme Court had recognized the power of the president to exercise one of the constitutional resources whenever there is a threat in the national security. As such, it will only be constitutional for the president to call out the AFP to prevent or suppress rebellion, invasion, or lawless violence whenever public interest so requires.

It was the main issue before whether or not the president has constitutional powers to issue such proclamation. The Supreme Court had ruled on the affirmative.

[mosimos]

The anti GMA did not question whether she has constitutional powers to declare such a proclamation. The issue is whether or not she exercised that power properly. In other words, whether or not there was abuse of power in the said proclamation.

The Sypreme Court in ruling the unacceptability of the warrantless arrests and the raids on media organization ruled it against GMA.

It was another setback for GMA.

[FK]

It was the main issue before whether or not the president has constitutional powers to issue such proclamation. The Supreme Court had ruled on the affirmative.

but... it was abused.

[Freeza]

It was the main issue before whether or not the president has constitutional powers to issue such proclamation. The Supreme Court had ruled on the affirmative.

but... it was abused.

i understand they are going to file charges,so the system will work on both parties.