By Rey Panaligan The Supreme Court (SC) was asked on Tuesday (June 2) to declare unconstitutional the Bayanihan to Heal as One law under Republic Act No. 11469 that was enacted to prevent the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) “in so far as the imposition in the country of the enhanced community quarantine (ECQ) is concerned.” (MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO) In a petition, Jaime O. Ibañez, former law dean of the Laguna State Polytechnic University, also asked the SC to annul several provisions of Presidential issuances in a move to fight COVID-19. Ibanez told the SC that RA 11469, under the phrase “for other purposes,” granted President Duterte legislative authority beyond what is necessary and proper to meet the declared policy in the law. "Legislative power to make laws is vested in Congress. The President is merely tasked to execute the law," he claimed in his petition. "Hence, it is an undue delegation of legislative power and usurpation of the same, when the President issued Proclamation No. 929 and 922, lacking legislative authority and guidelines passed by Congress in a situation of national emergency," he said. Presidential Proclamation No. 929, issued on March 16, declared a state of calamity in the entire Philippines, while Presidential Proclamation No. 922, issued on March 8, declared a state of public health emergency in the country. Ibañez’s petition is the first case brought before the SC on the government’s response to COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, Ibañez also asked the SC to annul Executive Order No. 112 on ECQ, and the Inter-Agency Task Force (IATF) Resolution No. 37 which placed Metro Manila under the modified ECQ (MECQ). He argued that the IATF has no valid delegated legislative authority to issue its Omnibus Guidelines on the Implementation of the community quarantine in the country. He said that the IATF’s guidelines on the restriction on the right to travel is “overboard, unreasonable, and arbitrary.” He also said the IATF violated the equal protection and due process clauses in the Constitution when it quarantined all individuals, including those who are not sick of COVID-19. He pointed out that the RA 11469 covered only COVID-19 patients, persons under investigation, and person under monitoring. "Locking or putting individuals who are not COVID-19 patients and the like, and placed them to quarantine area with unlimited period, is a complete disregard of the safeguards embodied in the bill of rights," he said. "The power to make laws cannot be delegated. The IATF has no power to define the law on quarantine, set its own parameters and restrictions and to even invent the Modified Enhanced Community (Quarantine) according to its own bizarre definition, which all amount to an exercise of grave abuse of discretion or in excess of its jurisdiction," he pointed out. “The better alternative, therefore, is for the government to increase the capacity of health systems and to undertake measures and programs, to test, to trace and to treat COVID-19 patients, persons under investigation (PUI's), and persons under monitoring (PUM's) covered by Republic Act No. 11469, but never to overburden or to over-intrude into private rights of an individual, including his right to liberty as protected in the Bill of Rights, unless he committed a crime or declared a leper or a COVID-19 patient," he added. It was not known immediately if Ibanez’s petition will be tackled by the SC in its full court session next week.