To all fellow Atenean lawyers,
I am bothered by the latest opinion of Fr. Bernas. To put it mildly, his opinion is very reckless.
In his last column, Fr. Bernas thinks that the rebellion to justify Martial Law need not be the same Rebellion as defined in the Revised Penal Code. I quote:
“But is rebellion as a criminal act defined in the Penal Code the same as rebellion for constitutional law purposes? My view is that it is not. My view is that the requirement of “rebellion” for purposes of constitutional law is satisfied if there exists an armed force whose activities have the effect of preventing the government from implementing its laws in any part of the Philippines.” (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 12/7/09 - What Powers Can The President Use?”
This opinion is dangerous! First, any public official with his security escorts who is not happy with a government sanction, barricades himself in his provincial building and prevents government work without claiming to have disowned allegiance to the Republic can now be charged with the crime of rebellion and not merely sedition.
Second, it is elementary that in a criminal case, one has to prove all the elements of a crime. Otherwise, the case will be dismissed. In Bernas’ opinion however, even if the Ampatuans do not remove their allegiance from the government, there is already a case for rebellion. But that will not wash in the courts. If there is no proof that Ampatuans have seceded from the Republic, there will be no case for rebellion and the charges will be dismissed. And last night, I understand that they have professed their loyalty to the Republic and to GMA. So, where is the rebellion insofar as the criminal prosecution is concerned? A Motion to Quash will be sufficient to dismiss the case.
What was he thinking? His comments in the Constitutional Commission clearly required an actual rebellion. Now, he changes his tune and suggests that you do not need to prove all the elements of rebellion before the president can impose martial law. This is dangerous and gives the president the leeway to impose martial law anywhere in the country. He has made martial law easier for the president to impose!
And to think that this government is foisting the charge of rebellion as an accommodation to the Ampatuan and here we have a constitutional law expert dishing out his opinion without any due regard to his criminal law and procedure and the consequences that it will bear forth.
With opinions like these, talo na tayo sa boxing bago pa pumasok sa ring!
-
p90x-workout liked this
-
edsregine reblogged this from mlq3
-
leflaneur reblogged this from mlq3
-
janettetoral liked this
-
arbet reblogged this from mlq3
-
mlq3 posted this
