Lawyers' group opposes grant of emergency powers to PRRD
Published Mar 23, 2020 12:00 am
By Jeffrey Damicog
An organization of lawyers on Monday (March 23) expressed their opposition to the proposal to grant emergency powers to President Duterte to fight the growing threat of COVID-19 in the country.
NUPL President Edre Olalia
(Facebook / MANILA BULLETIN “Even from a purely restrictive legal standpoint, the proposed measure seeking to grant emergency powers to the President for the purpose of addressing the COVID-19 pandemic is constitutionally unsound,” National Union of Peoples' Lawyers (NUPL) President Edre Olalia said in a statement. “The practical implications and the endless possibilities for its abuse, despite formal yet unreliable guarantees, make it even worse. It is scary, can become widespread and uncontrollable, even fatal to democracy,” he added. He expressed his concern that the powers being sought are “practically infinitely over-broad” and only makes the public “even more scared and edgy bordering on dangerous desperation and widespread discontent.” Olalia believes that the current emergency the country is facing should not be used to create power. “The government and the privileged must put their feet on the ground,” he said. Olalia said NUPL lawyers observed that the provisions of the bill “fail to satisfy even the most basic standards for the delegation of legislative authority, i.e. the completeness test and the sufficient standard test.” Among the problematic provisions they found, Olalia cited Sec. 4(1) which grants Duterte the power to “ontinue to adopt and implement measures to prevent or minimize further transmission and spread of COVID-19”; Sec. 4(18), “to undertake such other measures as may be reasonable and necessary to enable the President to carry out the declared national police subject to the Bill of Rights and other constitutional guarantees”; and Sec. 6 which prescribes penalties of imprisonment for a period of two months or a fine of up to P1 million, or both for “ny violation of the rules, regulations, and directives of the National Government issued pursuant hereto, xxx.” “Sec. 4(1) and 4(18) of the draft measure amount to a general and therefore invalid grant of legislative power, with no parameters that could limit the President’s exercise of authority. It is not enough for the law to state that the exercise of delegated authority be for the purpose sought to be achieved. Case law also demands that there be clear limitations to the exercise of such delegated power,” he explained. “Both aforementioned provisions are simply too broad that, in effect, they amount to a relinquishment of Congress’s duty to enact laws that would govern the government’s response to the emergency at hand.” Olialia also pointed out that, if the bill is passed, Sec. 6 criminalizes acts which “have not yet been defined.” “Apart from also being a complete relinquishment of legislative prerogative, this provision would give the President carte blanche to define and penalize crimes, in gross violation of the principle of separation of powers,” he warned.
NUPL President Edre Olalia(Facebook / MANILA BULLETIN “Even from a purely restrictive legal standpoint, the proposed measure seeking to grant emergency powers to the President for the purpose of addressing the COVID-19 pandemic is constitutionally unsound,” National Union of Peoples' Lawyers (NUPL) President Edre Olalia said in a statement. “The practical implications and the endless possibilities for its abuse, despite formal yet unreliable guarantees, make it even worse. It is scary, can become widespread and uncontrollable, even fatal to democracy,” he added. He expressed his concern that the powers being sought are “practically infinitely over-broad” and only makes the public “even more scared and edgy bordering on dangerous desperation and widespread discontent.” Olalia believes that the current emergency the country is facing should not be used to create power. “The government and the privileged must put their feet on the ground,” he said. Olalia said NUPL lawyers observed that the provisions of the bill “fail to satisfy even the most basic standards for the delegation of legislative authority, i.e. the completeness test and the sufficient standard test.” Among the problematic provisions they found, Olalia cited Sec. 4(1) which grants Duterte the power to “ontinue to adopt and implement measures to prevent or minimize further transmission and spread of COVID-19”; Sec. 4(18), “to undertake such other measures as may be reasonable and necessary to enable the President to carry out the declared national police subject to the Bill of Rights and other constitutional guarantees”; and Sec. 6 which prescribes penalties of imprisonment for a period of two months or a fine of up to P1 million, or both for “ny violation of the rules, regulations, and directives of the National Government issued pursuant hereto, xxx.” “Sec. 4(1) and 4(18) of the draft measure amount to a general and therefore invalid grant of legislative power, with no parameters that could limit the President’s exercise of authority. It is not enough for the law to state that the exercise of delegated authority be for the purpose sought to be achieved. Case law also demands that there be clear limitations to the exercise of such delegated power,” he explained. “Both aforementioned provisions are simply too broad that, in effect, they amount to a relinquishment of Congress’s duty to enact laws that would govern the government’s response to the emergency at hand.” Olialia also pointed out that, if the bill is passed, Sec. 6 criminalizes acts which “have not yet been defined.” “Apart from also being a complete relinquishment of legislative prerogative, this provision would give the President carte blanche to define and penalize crimes, in gross violation of the principle of separation of powers,” he warned.