Adam Niel G.
Corvera
Clinical Legal Education - II
University of Cebu School of Law
THE RULE OF LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES IN TIME OF COVID19
The Philippines is a Constitutional Democracy. This means that
the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land in which no other
laws, persons, officials, or entities above it.
Sec 1, Article II of the 1987 Constitution clearly states that the
Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides
in the people and all government authority emanates from them.
The constitution provides a balance between the authority of the
government and the rights of the people. It is expressly provided in
Article III of the Constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights.
Philippines faces a new health crisis. The pandemic COVID 19
keeps on rampaging the lives of every Filipinos. Hundreds have
already lost their lives. Because of this threat to people’s lives, the
government resorted to implement extreme measures to slow down
the spreading of the virus. Almost all of the Filipinos have been given
orders to stay at home. Thus, many have lost their jobs, hence, their
income to provide food for everyone’s table.
The President declared a National Emergency. The LGU’s have
been activated as an an implementing arm of the National
Government in the local level.
The legal consequences in all of these are as follows:
1. Even if there is a health crisis and the government exerted
extreme measure to solve the problem, it can nowhere be found in
the Constitution that Article III or the Bill of Rights may be suspended.
On the other hand, the Constitution expressly guarantee that rights of
the citizens are protected even in times of crisis. Thus, the health
crisis does not give the President or the entire government an
absolute power. Hence, still sovereignty resides in the people and
government authority emanates from them.
2. Even though local government units have been given specific
powers to implement the laws, rules, and regulations to stop the
spread of the virus, it does not create an imperium in imperio. The
President on the other hand cannot exercise control over the LGUs,
however, under the Constitution, it may only exercise general
supervision. Hence, all acts of both the national and local government
must be within the bounds of the law.
There is an idea circulating in all media reports that the President
may declare martial law. This idea is not supported by any legal
basis.
Under the Constitution, the President, 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.
There is no case of invasion or rebellion that public safety requires
the President to declare martial law. A health crisis regardless how
unprecedented it is, is not a ground for the declaration of martial law.
The Constitution is very clear on its wordings that the declaration of
martial law can only be done if there is invasion or rebellion and when
public safety requires it. Hence, the COVID19 pandemic does not
give any authority to the President to declare martial law.
Another issue during this entire COVID19 crisis is that
government officials have been very sensitive to the point that they
do not want the public to criticize them. In one of the provinces in the
Philippines, a governor even formed a special unit to track down
individuals who criticizes the government or the governor’s leadership
on social media. This behavior is unacceptable and a blatant violation
of one’s freedom of speech and of expression.
In various Philippine Jurisprudence, prior restraint to individual’s
freedom of speech and of expression is a violation to the constitution.
The formation of a special unit to track down policy oppositions is a
violation to the constitutional rights of individuals and a clear abuse of
power on the part of the government officials. This certain acts
weakens the democratic foundation of civilized society. Hence, it is
totally unacceptable for being unconstitutional and not morally right.
