else.” The court concluded, “It merely confuses our people and is used by some
police agents to justify abuses.” Moreover, the “time, manner and place” or
“content-neutral” constraints on public assemblies were valid for as long as local
governments designated “freedom parks” where people could protest without
securing a permit. However, the court noted that, apart from one city in the south,
no freedom park was designated in any city or town in the Philippines.^13
The irony, however, was that what the court struck down was an unconstitutional
press release, a phantom “law” which nonetheless caused actual injury to protesters
and real violations of the Bill of Rights.
Significantly, the court advanced the freedom of speech when it upheld the
use of exit polls during elections and the publication of their results.^14
ii. in the public sphere: effects on republican institutions
Arroyo’s presidency was hounded by public protests and coup attempts, and she
declared a state of emergency four times under various guises in order to evade
constitutional checks and balances.
Emergency powers in various guises
Due to the nightmare of one-man rule, the post-Marcos constitution confined the
extraordinary powers of the chief executive through institutional checks. It recog-
nized three situations of “national security” emergencies and a fourth situation of
economic emergency, all of them subject to Congressional or judicial oversight.
The three “commander-in-chief” powers are listed in succeeding gradations of
severity: the power to “call out the armed forces,” suspend the writ of habeas corpus
and thus authorize warrantless arrests, or proclaim martial law. Significantly, the
habeas corpus and martial-law powers are subject to automatic constraints.
Congress may automatically review these declarations within fixed time periods
“without need of a call.” The Supreme Court may be called on by any citizen to
exercise its power of judicial review, thus dispensing with the actual injury require-
ment for judicial standing. Finally, for emergencies of an economic nature, the
state may “temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately-owned
public utility or business affected with public interest.”
President Arroyo four times invoked her commander-in-chief powers, the third
time claiming an economic emergency as well. The first three times, she would
evade review by calling the situation a “state of rebellion” or “state of national
emergency.” Twice, the court upheld her, especially since she would moot the
petitions by lifting the emergency before the court had rendered judgment.
(^13) Bayanv.Ermita, G.R. No 169838 (April 25 , 2006 ).
(^14) ABS-CBN Broadcastingv.Commission on Elections, G.R. No 133486 (January 28 , 2000 ).