CPR Declared Void - Comments & Questions
Today, the Supreme Court handed down a decision, BAYAN et. al., versus EDUARDO ERMITA et al., declaring two things: (a) declaring B. P. Blg. 880 otherwise known as the Public Assembly Act constitutional; and (b) declaring the policy of Calibrated Preemptive Response unconstitutional. In the words of Helga, YEBAH!
Two things noticeable that were unanswered: (1) if CPR is unconstitutional, does it follow all charges filed by the PNP against any rallyist subsequent to the imposition of the CPR policy should be dismissed, their acts being violation of freedom of expression?
And (2) since the local governments failed to enact freedom parks for a good twenty years, inspite of the injunction contained in B. P. Blg. 880, does it not follow that the rallyists should not be charged with violation of B. P. Blg. 880 since the local government officials either deliberately or negligently failed to implement the letter of the law, i.e., to establish freedom parks within their respective jurisdiction where rallyists can peacefully gather? Is it not logical to expect that B. P. Blg. 880 should be held in suspended animation while there are still no declared freedom parks?
Like the E. O. 464 decision, this decision will require further stretching from lawyers of both sides as to how to prosecute or defend a case.
I believe the petitioners should also file either a Motion for Reconsideration or a Clarification as to the status of the arrests made pursuant to the void Calibrated Preemptive Response Policy of the government. Otherwise, we will be left again to the discretion of police officials whose minds have been made up against those who wish to seek redress for their grievances.
A general statement of policy declaring all arrests void as a result of CPR would go a long way to enhancing and institutionalizing freedom of expression against a repressive police force and government.
Two things noticeable that were unanswered: (1) if CPR is unconstitutional, does it follow all charges filed by the PNP against any rallyist subsequent to the imposition of the CPR policy should be dismissed, their acts being violation of freedom of expression?
And (2) since the local governments failed to enact freedom parks for a good twenty years, inspite of the injunction contained in B. P. Blg. 880, does it not follow that the rallyists should not be charged with violation of B. P. Blg. 880 since the local government officials either deliberately or negligently failed to implement the letter of the law, i.e., to establish freedom parks within their respective jurisdiction where rallyists can peacefully gather? Is it not logical to expect that B. P. Blg. 880 should be held in suspended animation while there are still no declared freedom parks?
Like the E. O. 464 decision, this decision will require further stretching from lawyers of both sides as to how to prosecute or defend a case.
I believe the petitioners should also file either a Motion for Reconsideration or a Clarification as to the status of the arrests made pursuant to the void Calibrated Preemptive Response Policy of the government. Otherwise, we will be left again to the discretion of police officials whose minds have been made up against those who wish to seek redress for their grievances.
A general statement of policy declaring all arrests void as a result of CPR would go a long way to enhancing and institutionalizing freedom of expression against a repressive police force and government.
posted by Edwin Lacierda | 4:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home