The Constitution in Times of National Emergency - Pals Lecture Updated

THE CONSTITUTION
IN TIMES OF NATIONAL
EMERGENCY
Dean J.P. VILLASOR
School of Law
University of Negros Occidental-Recoletos
Copyright ©2020 by Dean J.P. Villasor
All Rights Reserved
What is a national emergency?
A national emergency is an “emergency” that
is national in scope and magnitude, and
“connotes the existence of conditions
suddenly intensifying existing danger to life
or well-being beyond the degree that is
accepted as normal.” As contemplated by the
Constitution, the Supreme Court said that
these conditions may include rebellion,
economic crisis, pestilence or epidemic,
typhoon, flood, or other similar catastrophe
of nationwide proportions or effect. (David
v. Arroyo, G.R. 171396, 3 May 2006, 489
SCRA 160)
Emergencies, as perceived by the
legislature or the executive in the
United Sates since 1933, have been
occasioned by a wide range of
situations, classifiable under three (3)
principal kinds: a)economic, b) natural
disaster, and c) national security.
(David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, 3
May 2006, 489 SCRA 160)
From a constitutional standpoint, a national
emergency is a crisis of national proportions that
threatens the peace, good order, security and safety
of a country. A national emergency requires a swift
and decisive response to meet the exigencies of the
moment. (Black’s Law Dictionary online at
https://thelawdictionary.org/national-
emergency/. Last accessed on 14 April 2020)
Which branch of government
does the Constitution is the
repository of emergency
powers?
Congress is the repository of
emergency powers. However,
Congress is authorized by the
Constitution to delegate such
powers to the President. The
constitutional basis is Art. VI,
§23(2).
Under what conditions can
emergency powers be
exercised?
The following conditions must concur to warrant
the exercise emergency powers:
1) There must be war or other national emergency;

2) Congress must authorize the President to
exercise emergency powers for a limited period;
3) The authority granted to the President to
exercise emergency powers must be subject to the
restrictions as prescribed by Congress;
4) The powers must be necessary and proper to
meet the existing emergency; and
5) The emergency powers must be exercised to
carry out a declared national policy (Const., Art.
VI, §23(2)
Powers Exercised by the President
in Times of National Emergency
• Powers necessary & proper delegated by
Congress to the President to meet the existing
emergency
• Power of Appointment
• Power of General Supervision over LGUs
• Power of Control over agencies, bureaus and
offices under the Executive Department
• Commander-in-Chief powers
• Powers by necessary implication
• Residual powers
National Emergencies:
A Constitutional History
Instances when extraordinary
powers were invoked
• 1941: Commonwealth Act No. 671,
otherwise known as the Emergency
Powers Act, was passed by the National
Assembly declaring a State of Total
Emergency as a result of war (World War
II) and authorizing the President to
promulgate rules and regulations to meet
such emergency on 16 December 1941.
powers were invoked
• 1944: Proclamation No. 29 (President Jose P.
Laurel declared a state of martial law and
suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus over the entire Philippines)
• 1949: President Elpidio Quirino suspended the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in some
parts of Luzon to quell the rebellion of the Huk
guerillas.
powers were invoked
• 1971: President Ferdinand E. Marcos suspended
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus on the
entire country due to the Plaza Miranda
bombing;
• 1972: Proclamation No. 1081 (Declaration of
martial law on the entire country) was signed by
President Marcos on 21 September 1972
powers were invoked
• 1989: After Proclamation No. 503 was
issued by President Corazon C. Aquino on
6 December 1989 declaring a state of
emergency due to the 1989 Coup,
Congress passed Rep. Act No. 6826 on 20
December 1989 granting emergency
powers to the President
powers were invoked
• 1993: Congress passes Rep. Act No. 7648

(Electric Power Crisis Act of 1993) and was
signed by President Fidel V. Ramos.
powers were invoked
• 2001 & 2003: President Arroyo declares a
state of rebellion under Presidential
Proclamation No. 38 (Siege on Malacañang)
to suppress and quell the rebellion on 1 May
2001. On 27 July 2003, Pres. Proclamation
No. 427 was issued in the aftermath of the
Oakwood Mutiny.
• 2006: President Arroyo declares a State of
Emergency over the entire Philippines under
Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 (EDSA
Day March).
powers were invoked
• 24 November 2009: Proclamation No.
1946 was issued by President Arroyo
declaring a state of emergency in the
provinces of Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat
and the City of Cotabato for the purpose of
preventing and suppressing lawless
violence in the aforesaid areas
powers were invoked
• 4 December 2009: Proclamation No. 1959
was signed by President Arroyo declaring a
state of martial law and suspending the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in
Maguindanao
powers were invoked
• 2017: Proclamation No. 216 (Proclaiming
a state of martial law & suspending the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in
Mindanao) was signed by President
Rodrigo R. Duterte.
• 2018: The extension of martial law was
signed by President Duterte under
Proclamation No. 216.
powers were invoked
• 2020: President Rodrigo R. Duterte issued
Presidential Proclamation No. 922 (Proclaiming a
State of Public Health Emergency) and
Presidential Proclamation No. 929 (Proclaiming a
State of Calamity). Congress enacted Rep. Act No.
11469, declaring a State of National Emergency,
which provided emergency powers necessary and
proper for the President to meet the national
emergency
Observation
• Since the 1940s, there were only two (2)
instances that did not require the outright
exercise of the Commander-in-Chief
powers. The declared emergency
necessitated either an economic or civil
defense response in the following
situations: (1) The economic emergency in
1989 (Rep. Act No. 7648, The Electric
Power Crisis Act of 1993), and (2) The
public health emergency in 2020 (Rep. Act
No. 11469, to address the global pandemic
brought about by COVID-19)
All other instances involved the
invocation of the Commander-
in-Chief powers of the
President (12 out of 14
instances that were cited)
Categories of National
Emergencies
Categories of National
Emergencies
• National emergencies necessitating a military
defense response
• National emergencies necessitating a civil defense
response
• National emergencies necessitating an economic
response
National emergencies
necessitating a military defense
response
A military defense emergency is an
emergency condition necessitating the use of
military force that exists when a major
attack is made upon the armed forces either
through lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion where the security of the State,
including the lives of people, are
endangered.
Source: U.S. Department of Defense

Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms,
2010
Lawless violence, rebellion,
invasion or war necessitates a
military defense response to
the existing national
emergency
necessitating a civil defense
response
A civil defense or civil protection emergency
contemplates measures to protect the citizens of
a state from catastrophes. The purpose of these
measures is to save lives and to protect property,
public welfare, public health and safety, or to
lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe. It is a
system of protective measures and emergency
relief activities conducted by civilians in case of
natural disasters, such as pestilence, epidemic or
pandemic, typhoon, flood, or other similar
catastrophe.
Source: U.S. Department of Defense Dictionary

of Military and Associated Terms, 2010
Pestilence, epidemics,
pandemics, typhoons, floods,
storm surges, earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions, other
natural disasters or similar
catastrophes necessitate a
civil defense response to the
existing national emergency
necessitating an economic
response
An economic emergency
contemplates the situation where
emergency economic measures are
resorted to in order to avert an
economic crisis and restore the
stability of the national economy,
prevent a recession and avoid
widespread chaos and economic
dislocation.
An economic recession or
depression, an energy crisis,
or other disaster that
threatens the stability of the
national economy
necessitates an economic
response to the existing
national emergency
Judicial Review
Judicial Review
Art. VIII, §1 (The Grave Abuse Clause) as a legal
remedy in cases involving:
• Art. VI, §23(2) (Delegation of emergency powers
by Congress to the President)
• Art. VII, §1 (Executive Power of the President in
general)
• Art. VII, §18 (Commander-in-Chief Powers), in
questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis of
the executive determination of lawless violence,
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, or the declaration of martial law
Judicial Review
Art. VIII, §1 as a legal remedy in cases involving:
• Art. XII, §17 (Power of the State during national emergencies

to temporarily take over or direct the operation of any
privately-owned public utility or business affected with public
interest)
• Violations of Art. III (Bill of Rights), especially §§1 (Due
Process & Equal Protection Clauses), 2 (Right against
Unreasonable Searches and Seizures), 4 (Freedom of Speech,
Expression, Press, Assembly and Religious Freedom) & 6
(Right to Travel)
Judicial Review
Art. VIII, §1, as a legal remedy in cases

involving:
• Art. VI, §25(5) (Power to transfer

appropriations within each department)
Judicial Review
• Legislative power, through which

extraordinary measures are exercised,
remains in Congress even in times of
crisis. (Araneta v. Dinglasan, 84 Phil. 369
[1949])
Judicial Review
• The suspension of the privilege of the writ

of habeas corpus was deemed not
unconstitutional in Montenegro v.
Castañeda, 91 Phil. 882 (1949)
Judicial Review
• Suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus was deemed not
unconstitutional in Lansang v. Garcia, G.R.
No. 33964, 11 December 1971, 42 SCRA 448.
• The power to determine the sufficiency of the

factual basis of the suspension of the writ of
habeas corpus is a justiciable question which
the Court may determine in the exercise of its
power of judicial review.
Judicial Review
• Article VII of the Constitution vests in the Executive the
power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus under specified conditions. Pursuant to the
principle of separation of powers underlying our system
of government, the Executive is supreme within his own
sphere. However, the separation of powers, under the
Constitution, is not absolute. What is more, it goes hand
in hand with the system of checks and balances, under
which the Executive is supreme, as regards the
suspension of the privilege, but only if and when he
acts within the sphere allotted to him by the Basic Law,
and the authority to determine whether or not he has so
acted is vested in the Judicial Department, which, in this
respect, is, in turn, constitutionally supreme.
Judicial Review
• In the exercise of such authority, the function of the
Court is merely to check — not to supplant — the
Executive, or to ascertain merely whether he had gone
beyond the constitutional limits of his jurisdiction, not to
exercise the power vested in him or to determine the
wisdom of his act. To be sure, the power of the Court to
determine the validity of the contested proclamation is
far from being identical to, or even comparable with, its
power over ordinary civil or criminal cases elevated
thereto by ordinary appeal from inferior courts, in which
cases the appellate court has all of the powers of the
court of origin. (Concepcion, C.J., for majority of the
Court, in Lansang v. Garcia, G.R. No. 33964, 11
December 1971, 42 SCRA 448)
• “The Constitution is a law for rulers and for people
equally in war and in peace and covers with the shield of
its protection all classes of men at all times and under all
circumstances.” This ringing affirmation should at the
very least give pause to those troubled by the continuing
respect that must be accorded civil liberties under crisis
conditions. The fact that the Constitution provides for
only one situation where a provision of the Bill of Rights
may be suspended, emphasizes the holding in the above-
cited Milligan case that the framers of the Constitution
“limited the suspension to one great right and left the
rest to remain forever inviolable.” (Fernando, J.,
concurring and dissenting, in Lansang v. Garcia, supra,
citing Ex parte Milligan, 76 U.S. 2 [1866])
Judicial Review
• The factual necessity of calling out the armed forces is
something that is for the President to decide. He has a
vast intelligence network to gather information, some of
which may be classified as highly confidential or
affecting the security of the state. In the exercise of the
power to call out the Armed Forces, on-the-spot
decisions may be imperatively necessary in emergency
situations to avert great loss of human lives & mass
destruction of property. Although the Court, in a proper
case, may look into the sufficiency of the factual basis of
the exercise of this power, on the basis of its power to
determine grave abuse of discretion, this is no longer
feasible when the proclamation has already been lifted.
(Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, G.R. No.
141284, 15 August 2000, 338 SCRA 81)
Judicial Review
• The Court, in a proper case, may look into

the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
exercise of this power. However, this is no
longer feasible at this time, Proclamation
No. 38 having been lifted. (Lacson v.
Perez, G.R. No. 147780, 10 May 2001,
357 SCRA 756)
• Art. VII, Sec. 18 grants the President, as Commander-in-
Chief, a “sequence” of “graduated power[s].” From the
most to the least benign, these are: the calling out power,
the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, and the power to declare martial law. In the
exercise of the latter two powers, the Constitution
requires the concurrence of two conditions, namely, an
actual invasion or rebellion, and that public safety
requires the exercise of such power. However, as we
observed in Integrated Bar of the Philippines v.
Zamora, “[t]hese conditions are not required in the
exercise of the calling out power. The only criterion is
that ‘whenever it becomes necessary,’ the President may
call the armed forces ‘to prevent or suppress lawless
violence, invasion or rebellion.’”
•
• In calling out the armed forces, a declaration of a
state of rebellion is an utter superfluity. At most,
it only gives notice to the nation that such a state
exists and that the armed forces may be called to
prevent or suppress it. Perhaps the declaration
may wreak emotional effects upon the perceived
enemies of the State, even on the entire nation.
But this Court's mandate is to probe only into
the legal consequences of the declaration. This
Court finds that such a declaration is devoid of
any legal significance. For all legal intents, the
declaration is deemed not written. (Sanlakas v.
Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085, 3
February 2004, 421 SCRA 656)
Judicial Review
• David v. Arroyo, G.R. 171396, 3 May

2006, 489 SCRA 160, was filed
questioning the constitutionality of
Presidential Proclamation No. 1017
• The Supreme Court held that PP1017 is
constitutional insofar as it constitutes a call by
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on the AFP
to prevent or suppress lawless violence.
However, the provisions of PP1017 commanding
the AFP to enforce obedience to all laws not
related to lawless violence, as well as decrees
promulgated by the President, are
unconstitutional. The President cannot take over
privately-owned public utility or business
affected with public interest without prior
legislation.
It is clear that PP 1017 is not a declaration of
Martial Law. It is merely an exercise of President
Arroyo’s calling-out power for the armed forces to
assist her in preventing or suppressing lawless
violence. President Arroyo could validly declare the
existence of a state of national emergency even in
the absence of a Congressional enactment.
But the exercise of emergency powers, such as the

taking over of privately owned public utility or
business affected with public interest, is a different
matter. This requires a delegation from Congress.
Courts have often said that constitutional
provisions in pari materia are to be construed
together. Otherwise stated, different clauses,
sections, and provisions of a constitution which
relate to the same subject matter will be construed
together and considered in the light of each
other. Considering that Section 17 of Article XII
and Section 23 of Article VI, previously quoted,
relate to national emergencies, they must be read
together to determine the limitation of the exercise
of emergency powers.
Generally, Congress is the repository of emergency
powers. This is evident in the tenor of Section 23
(2), Article VI authorizing it to delegate such
powers to the President. Certainly, a body cannot
delegate a power not reposed upon it.
• In April 1952, President Truman issued an
executive order directing Secretary of Commerce
Charles Sawyer to seize and operate most of the
nation's steel mills. This was done in order to
avert the expected effects of a strike by the
United Steelworkers of America.
• The Court held that the President did not have
the authority to issue such an order. The Court
found that there was no congressional statute
that authorized the President to take possession
of private property. The Court also held that the
President's military power as Commander in
Chief of the Armed Forces did not extend to
labor disputes. The Court argued that "the
President's power to see that the laws are
faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to
be a lawmaker.” (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)
Judicial Review
• 2017: Proclamation No. 216 was declared not
unconstitutional on the ground that there
was factual bases for the declaration, i.e.
there was rebellion, and public safety
required it, as enunciated in Lagman v.
Medialdea, G.R. Nos. 231658, 231771,
231774, 4 July 2017
Judicial Review
• 2018: The extension of martial law under Procl.
No. 216 was questioned. The Court ruled that
rebellion persists as to satisfy the first condition
for the extension of martial law or of the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, and public safety requires it under the
second condition for the extension, according to
the Supreme Court in Lagman v. Pimentel, G.R.
Nos. 235935, 236061, 236145, & 236155, 6
February 2018
PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS
First Quarter of 2020

Factual Timeline
(December 2019 – April 2020)

• December 12, 2019
The first people with symptoms of a new flu-like illness are
identified in Wuhan, China — but little is known about the
cause or the threat to public health. These cases are not
disclosed for several weeks.
Dr. Ai Fen, the director of the emergency department of the
Wuhan Central Hospital, received a patient's report
labelled “SARS coronavirus”. Dr. Ai Fen was the first doctor
to have ordered tests on the early coronavirus patients.
Dr. Li Wenliang’s viral warning comes after reading the
patient’s report from Dr. Ai Fen, who encircled the word
“SARS”. Chinese doctor Li Wenliang then warns colleagues
about a new coronavirus strain via social media platform
WeChat. He later becomes a whistleblower, with his
warnings shared publicly.
China alerts the WHO to pneumonia scare.
Authorities in China alert the WHO (World Health
Organisation) to several flu-like cases and an
outbreak of pneumonia affecting dozens of patients
in Wuhan.
Chinese authorities treated dozens of cases of
pneumonia of unknown cause. The government in
Wuhan, China, confirmed that health authorities
were treating dozens of cases.
• January 1, 2020
Cases traced back to seafood market. The U.S.
health authority, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC), traces the origin of the
virus to a seafood market in Wuhan. The Huanan
Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was ordered
closed by Chinese authorities on this day.
• January 3, 2020
First airport begins screening passengers. Changi
Airport in Singapore puts passengers arriving from
Wuhan through temperature screening to detect
signs of illness.
• January 7, 2020
Chinese authorities confirm they have identified the novel
virus, named 2019-nCoV.
• January 11, 2020
China reported its first death, a 61 year old man who was a
regular customer at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market
in Wuhan, China.
• January 20, 2020
Other countries, including the United States, confirmed
cases of the novel coronavirus.
• January 23, 2020
Wuhan, a city of more than 11 million, was cut off by the
Chinese authorities. Planes and trains leaving the city were
cancelled. Buses, subways and ferries were suspended in
Wuhan.
• January 30, 2020
The W.H.O. declared a global health emergency.
The first case of the disease was confirmed in the

Philippines, which is a 38-year old Chinese
woman.
The Research Institute for Tropical Medicine

(RITM) began conducting confirmatory tests for
the disease. Before this date, confirmatory tests
were conducted abroad.
• February 2, 2020
The first death from the disease in the

Philippines was confirmed. This death is the
first confirmed death outside the Chinese
mainland.
The first confirmed case of a Filipino citizen
outside the Philippines was announced. The case is
of a crew member of the cruise ship Diamond
Princess quarantined off the coast of Yokohama,
Japan.
The third case in the country was confirmed.
Dr. Li Wenliang dies due to an infection by the
novel coronavirus.
• February 9–22, 2020
Repatriates from Wuhan were quarantined at the New

Clark City New in Capas, Tarlac. None of them displayed
any symptoms during the quarantine period. They were
released after they were cleared for the disease.
• March 7, 2020
The Department of Health confirmed that the fifth case was

the first local transmission in the country. Code Red Sub-
Level 1 was also raised as a precautionary measure.
• March 9, 2020
President Duterte formally declared a state

of public health emergency in the
Philippines. The President also convened the
Inter-Agency Task Force on Emerging
Infectious Diseases (IATF-EID).
The President also suspended all classes, in

public and private, in Metro Manila from
March 10 to 14 and confirmed four more
cases, totaling 24 cases.
• March 12, 2020
Vice President Leni G. Robredo on March 12

addressed the public about COVID-19. The
vice president urged the government to
adopt alternative work arrangements (work
from home policy), fast-track the process of
providing testing kits to the communities,
and protect vulnerable groups of people
from the pandemic.
• March 12, 2020
President Duterte announces a partial lockdown

(community quarantine) on Metro Manila beginning at
midnight on March 15 that will cover 16 cities and one
municipality. Land, domestic air, and domestic sea travel to
and from Metro Manila shall be suspended until April 14,
2020 (international departures will be permitted). Entry
travel restrictions shall be imposed upon those traveling
from countries with localized COVID-19 transmissions,
except for Filipino citizens (including their foreign spouse
and children) or holders of Permanent Resident Visas and
Diplomat Visas. Mass transportation within Metro Manila
shall continue to operate with social distancing guidelines.
• March 15, 2020
The National Capital Region and the municipality
of Cainta in Rizal have been placed under
“community quarantine” or a partial lockdown that
will last until April 14.
• March 16, 2020

Two new cases have been confirmed on March 16,
totaling 142 cases.
President Duterte announces the placement of the
entire island of Luzon including its associated
islands on “enhanced community quarantine”, in
effect imposing a lockdown on the island.
• March 17, 2020
The Department of Health confirmed that the occurrence of
community-based transmission of the coronavirus in the
Philippines.
The President signed Proclamation No. 929 that placed the
entire Philippines under the state of calamity on account of
COVID-19.
• March 19, 2020

15 new cases were confirmed on March 19, totaling 217
cases.
Health Secretary Francisco Duque was placed under home
quarantine after one of the department's senior officials
tested positive for the disease.
Foreign Affairs Secretary Teodoro Locsin, Jr. announced
the temporary suspension of visa issuance to all foreign
individuals and cancellation of existing ones.
• March 20, 2020
The President addressed the nation through the House

of Representatives and gave additional orders to the
people and the government to alleviate the spread of
COVID-19.
Malacañang asked Congress, on March 22, to declare a

national emergency and grant the president emergency
powers on account of COVID-19.
• March 23, 2020
The Senate and the House of Representatives had a special
session, on March 23, to deliberate President Duterte's
request to realign funds for COVID-19 response.
The House of Representatives approved HB 6616 or
“Bayanihan Act” on March 23, with 284-9-0 votes.
• March 24, 2020

With a 12-0-0 votes (and 7-1-0 from non-attending
senators), the Senate approved Senate Bill 1481 or “We
Heal As One” that will grant President Duterte additional
powers to handle COVID-19.
Combining both versions of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, the bill was named “Bayanihan to Heal as
One Act”. The bill was then sent to President Duterte for
approval.
• March 25, 2020
President Duterte signed the “Bayanihan to Heal as
One Act of 2020” into law, granting him 30
additional powers to handle COVID-19 and its
projected aftermath.
84 new cases were confirmed on March 25,
surpassing the 600-mark and totaling 636 cases.
They also confirmed six new recoveries and three
new deaths, bringing the death toll to 38 and
recovered patients to 26.
• March 29, 2020
Dr. Ai Fen, the director of the emergency
department of Wuhan Central Hospital who was
the first doctor who treated the early coronavirus
patients in December 2019, is reportedly missing.
• April 12, 2020
The Philippine government now requires public disclosure of
personal information of COVID-19 patients to further contain
the spread of the virus.
• April 22, 2020
111 new cases were confirmed on April 22, bringing the
COVID-19 cases in the country to 6,710. 9 new deaths and 39
new patients have recovered, bringing the death toll to 446
and recovered patients to 693.
April 24, 2020
The President approved the

extension of the enhanced
community quarantine in
selected regions, provinces and
cities nationwide until May 15,
2020
In what category does a public
health emergency belong to?
A national emergency due to
public health concerns belongs
in the category of a national
emergency necessitating a civil
defense response
Why does a public health
emergency belong in the
category of a national
emergency necessitating a civil
defense response?
A public health emergency, such as the
COVID-19 pandemic, necessitates the
expertise of medical doctors and allied
medical professionals, as well as
specialists, preferably epidemiologists
and infectious disease experts, and
other public health authorities as the
lead agents in addressing a national
public health crisis, which threatens the
right to health of the people under Art.
II, §15 of the Constitution
The Government Response
• Declaration of a State of Public Health
Emergency (Pres. Proclamation No. 922)
• Declaration of a State of Calamity (Pres.
Proclamation No. 929)
• Republic Act 11469, in rel. to Rep. Act No.
11332
Types of Emergency Powers
• Commander-in-Chief Powers (in case of invasion
or rebellion, when the public safety requires it)
• Declaration of a state of war (reposed exclusively
in Congress)
• Declaration of a state of emergency (exercised by
the President upon prior authorization by
Congress)
Commander-in-Chief Powers
Constitutional Basis
• Commander-in-Chief Powers
• Art. VI, §18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief
of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes
necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. 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.
• Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of
martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in
person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress,
voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its
Members in regular or special session, may revoke such
proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not
be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the
President, the Congress may, in the same manner,
extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to
be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or
rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
• The Congress, if not in session, shall within twenty-four
hours following such proclamation or suspension,
convene in accordance with its rules without need of a
call.
• The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate

proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the
factual bases of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension
thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within
thirty days from its filing.
• A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of
the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil
courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the
conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and
agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to
function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the
writ.
• The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply
only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or
offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.
• During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any
person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially
charged within three days, otherwise he shall be
released.
Commander-in-Chief Powers
(Graduated Powers)
• Calling out power
• Power to suspend the privilege of the writ

of habeas corpus
• Martial law power

War Powers
• Power of Congress to Declare a State of War
• Art. VI, §23, par. 1. The Congress, by a vote of

two-thirds of both Houses in joint session
assembled, voting separately, shall have the
sole power to declare the existence of a state
of war.
Emergency Powers
• Art. VI, §23, par. 2. In times of war or other national
emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the
President, for a limited period and subject to such
restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers
necessary and proper to carry out a declared national
policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the
Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next
adjournment thereof.
• Art. XII, §17. In times of national emergency,
when the public interest so requires, the State
may, during the emergency and under
reasonable terms prescribed by it,
temporarily take over or direct the operation
of any privately-owned public utility or
business affected with public interest.
Nature of Emergency Powers
• Emergency powers reposed in Congress
• Delegated to the President

Republic Act No. 11469
Bayanihan to Heal as One Act

(Emergency Powers Law 2020)
Declared National Policy
(Rep. Act No. 11469, §3)
The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly affected nations
worldwide, including the Philippines, and has caused
and is continuing to cause loss of lives and
disruption of the economy. Thus, there is an urgent
need to: (a) mitigate, if not contain, the transmission
of COVID-19; (b) immediately mobilize assistance in
the provision of basic necessities to families and
individuals affected by the imposition of Community
Quarantine, especially indigents and their families;
(c) undertake measures that will prevent the
overburdening of the healthcare system; (d)
immediately and amply provide healthcare,
including medical tests and treatments, to COVID-19
patients, persons under monitoring (PUIs), or
persons under monitoring (PUMs);
(e) undertake a program for recovery and
rehabilitation, including a social amelioration
program and provision of safety nets to all affected
sectors; (f) ensure that there is sufficient, adequate,
and readily available funding to undertake the
foregoing; (g) partner with the private sector and
other stakeholders to deliver these measures and
programs quickly and effectively; and (h) promote
and protect the collective interests of all Filipinos in
these challenging times. By reason thereof, and in
order to optimize the efforts of the President to carry
out the tasks needed to implement the
aforementioned policy, it is imperative to grant him
authority subject to such limitations as hereinafter
provided.
Construction or Interpretation
• Nothing in Rep. Act No. 11469 shall be construed
as an impairment, restriction or modification of
the provisions of the Constitution. In case the
exercise of the powers herein granted conflicts
with other statutes, orders, rules or regulations,
the provisions of this Act shall prevail. (Id., §7)
Summary of Authorized Powers

§4 (a) to (ee)
Republic Act No. 11469, §4
• adopting and implementing measures, which are based
on World Health Organization guidelines and best
practices, to prevent or suppress further transmission
and spread of COVID-19 through education, detection,
protection and treatment;
• hastening the accreditation of testing kits;
• facilitating prompt testing of patients under investigation
(PUIs) and persons under monitoring (PUMs) as well as
the immediate mandatory isolation and treatment of
patients, the cost of which shall be covered by the
National Health Insurance Program of the Philippine
Health Corporation.
• providing an emergency subsidy amounting to five
thousand pesos (₱5,000.00) to eight thousand pesos
(₱8,000.00) to low income households based on
prevailing regional minimum wage rates;
• providing all public health workers with "COVID-19
special risk allowance";
• directing the Philippine Health Corporation to shoulder
all medical expenses of public and private health workers
related to exposure to COVID-19 or any work-related
injury or disease during the pandemic emergency;
• providing a compensation of one hundred thousand
pesos (₱100,000.00) to public and private health
workers who contract severe COVID-19 infection while
performing their duties and a compensation amounting
to one million pesos (₱1,000,000.00) shall be given to
public and private health workers who will die because of
COVID-19;
• ensuring that all local government units adhere to all the
rules, regulations and directives issued by the national
government with respect to this law as well as implement
community quarantine consistent with the standards the
national government has laid down;
• directing the operation of any privately-owned hospitals,
medical and health facilities and other establishments to
house health workers, serve as quarantine areas and
centers, medical relief, aid distribution locations and
temporary medical facilities provided that the
management and operation of these establishments or
facilities shall still be with the owners, however,
unjustifiable refusal of the establishment or the facility to
operate for this purpose may mean take over of the
President of the Philippines on the operations of this
establishment or facility with the limitations and
safeguards stated in the Constitution;
• directing public transportation to ferry health,
emergency and frontline personnel as well as
other individuals provided that the management
and operation of this enterprise shall still be with
the owner, however, unjustifiable refusal of the
enterprise to operate for this purpose may mean
take over of the President of the Philippines on
the operations of this enterprise with the
limitations and safeguards stated in the
Constitution;
• enforcing measures against hoarding, profiteering,
injurious speculations, manipulation of prices,
product deceptions, cartels, monopolies or other
combinations to restraint trade or affect the
supply, distribution and movement of food,
clothing, hygiene and sanitation products,
medicine and medical supplies, fuel, fertilizers,
chemicals, building materials, implements,
machinery equipment and spare parts for
agriculture, industry and other essential services;
• ensuring that donation, acceptance and distribution of
health products for COVID-19 public health emergency
are not unnecessarily delayed;
• procuring of medical goods, equipment and supplies to
be allocated and distributed to public health facilities
that are designated as COVID-19 referral hospitals,
private hospitals that are capable of providing support
care and treatment to COVID-19 patients and public and
private laboratories that are capable of testing suspected
COVID-19 patients, in the most expeditious manner
through exemptions from Republic Act No. 9184 or the
"Government Procurement Reform Act" and other
relevant laws;
• procuring of goods and services for social amelioration
measures, in the most expeditious manner through
exemptions from Republic Act No. 9184 or the
“Government Procurement Reform Act” and other
relevant laws;
• leasing of real property or venue for use to house or serve
as quarantine centers, medical relief and aid distribution
locations or temporary medical facilities, in the most
expeditious manner through exemptions from Republic
Act No. 9184 or the “Government Procurement Reform
Act” and other relevant laws;
• partnering with the Philippine Red Cross in giving aid to
the people;
• hiring temporary Human Resources for Health (HRH),
who shall receive appropriate compensation, allowances
and hazard duty pay, to complement or supplement the
current health workforce or to man the temporary
medical facilities;
• ensuring availability of credit especially in the
countryside by lowering the effective lending rates of
interest and reserve requirements of lending institutions;
• liberalizing the grant of incentives for the manufacture or
importation of critical or needed equipment or supplies
for carrying out of the policy of this law provided that
importation shall be exempt from import duties, taxes
and other fees;
• ensuring the availability of essential goods by adopting
necessary measures to facilitate and/or minimize
disruption to the supply chain;
• regulating and limiting operation of private or

public transportation whether land, sea or air;
• conserving, regulating the distribution and use
as well as ensuring the adequate supply of
power, fuel, energy and water;
• moving statutory deadlines and timelines for
filing and submission of any document, payment
of taxes, fees and other charges required by law;
• directing all private and public banks, quasi-
banks, financing companies, lending companies
and other financial institutions, including
the Government Service Insurance System,
Social Security System and Pag-ibig Fund to
implement a grace period of 30 days, minimum
for the payment of all loans falling due within
the enhanced community quarantine without
interests, penalties, fees or other charges;
• providing for a minimum of 30 days grace period on
residential rents falling due within the period of the
enhanced community quarantine without interest,
penalties, fees and other charges;
• implementing an expanded and enhanced Pantawid
Pamilya Pilipino Program and providing an assistance
program through the Department of Social Welfare and
Development and the Department of Labor and
Employment;
• lifting the 30% cap on the amount for the quick respond
fund as provided for in Republic Act No. 10121 or the
"Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
Act of 2010" during the state of national emergency due
to COVID-19.
• Undertake such other measures as may be

reasonable and necessary to enable the
President to carry out the declared
national policy subject to the Bill of Rights
and other constitutional guarantees
Comments on
Two-Part Analysis of §6(f)

Republic Act No. 11469, §6(f)
• Individuals or groups creating, perpetrating or spreading
false information regarding the COVID-19 crisis on social
media and other platforms, such information having no
valid or beneficial effect on the population, and are
clearly geared to promote chaos, panic, anarchy, fear, or
confusion; and those participating in cyber incidents that
make use or take advantage of the current crisis situation
to prey on the public through scams, phishing,
fraudulent emails, or other similar acts. (Id., §6[f])
First Part: False information

Facial challenge for being constitutionally infirm?
• Vague (Void for Vagueness doctrine)
• A statute (or provision thereof is void for vagueness and
unenforceable if it is too vague for a person of average
intelligence to understand or if a term cannot be strictly
defined and is not defined anywhere in such law. If an average
person cannot generally determine what persons are
regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment
may be imposed.
Overbroad (Overbreadth doctrine)
• A law is overbroad if it substantially

prohibits conduct protected by the
Constitution, such as forms of protected
speech. Political speech, which is the most
protected form of speech under Art. III, §4
of the Constitution, is in danger of being
violated in §6(f).
“As applied challenge”?
• In specific instances, §6(f) may be impugned if it violates

Art. III, §4 on freedom of expression and Art. XVI, §10
(The State shall provide the policy environment for the
full development of Filipino capability and the
emergence of communication structures suitable to the
needs and aspirations of the nation and the balanced
flow of information into, out of, and across the country,
in accordance with a policy that respects the freedom of
speech and of the press).
• What constitutes “false information”?
• “Regarding the COVID-19 crisis”
• Truth is a defense
• Who determines whether the information
has any valid or beneficial effect on the
population?
• “Are clearly geared to promote chaos,
panic, anarchy, fear, or confusion”
• If not “clearly geared” to promote the

aforementioned objectives, is good faith a
defense?
Rep. Act No. 11469 §6(f)
and
Const., Art. III, §4
Clear and Present Danger Test
• Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, 15
February 2008, 545 SCRA 441
A governmental action that restricts freedom of

speech or of the press based on content is given
the strictest scrutiny, with the government having
the burden of overcoming the presumed
unconstitutionality by the clear and present danger
rule. This rule applies equally to all kinds of
media, including broadcast media.
• Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616

(1919); Holmes, J., joined by Brandeis, J.,
dissenting
• The question in every case is whether the
words used are in such circumstances and are
of such a nature as to create a clear and
present danger that they will bring about the
substantive evils that the Congress has a right
to prevent. It is a question of proximity and
degree.
Imminent Lawless Action Test
• Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
The Court held that the government cannot punish

inflammatory speech unless that speech is
“directed to inciting or producing imminent
lawless action and is likely to incite or produce
such action.”
• There are three elements of this test:

1) Intent to speak;
2) Imminence of lawlessness; and
3) Likelihood of lawlessness
“Advocacy of illegal action becomes punishable
only if such advocacy is directed to inciting or
producing imminent lawless action and is likely to
incite or produce action. Except in unusual
instances, Brandenburg protects the advocacy of
lawlessness as long as such speech is not translated
into action”
- MVRS Publications, Inc. v. Islamic Da’wah

Council of the Philippines, G.R. No. 135306, 28
January 2003, 396 SCRA 210 citing Brandenburg
v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
Counterspeech Doctrine
Counterspeech Doctrine
• Counter bad speech with good speech
• Counter negative speech with positive
speech
• Government should counter false speech
with truthful speech as opposed to
engaging in raw censorship and stark
suppression
“The remedy for speech that is false is
speech that is true. This is the ordinary
course for a free society. The response to the
unreasoned is the rational; to the
uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-
out lie, the simple truth.”
- Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in United

States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012)
“If there be a time to expose through
discussion the falsehood and fallacies,
to avert the evil by the processes of
education, the remedy to be applied is
more speech, not enforced silence”
– Justice Louis D. Brandeis,

concurring, in Whitney v. California,
274 U.S. 357 (1927)
Second Part: Cyber Incidents

through scams, phishing,
fraudulent emails, or other
similar acts
• Those participating in cyber incidents that

make use or take advantage of the current
crisis situation to prey on the public
through scams, phishing, fraudulent
emails, or other similar acts
• Facial challenge for being vague?
• What are “Cyber Incidents”?
• “scams”?
• “phishing”?
• “fraudulent emails”?
Commercial speech
• Commercial speech has limited constitutional

protection, and thus may be subject to
government regulation. It is entitled to less
protection than political speech and can be
regulated if false or misleading.
• At the outset, we must determine whether the expression is

protected by the Free Speech Clause. For commercial speech
to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful
activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the
asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries
yield positive answers, we must determine whether the
regulation directly advances the governmental interest
asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than necessary
to serve that interest. (Central Hudson Gas & Electric Power
Corporation v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557
[1980])
The Central Hudson test presents the following questions
for the Court: (1) Does the speech concern a lawful activity
and not misleading? If it meets these requirements, then
there are three other questions: (2) Does the government
have a substantial interest? (3) Does the regulation directly
and materially advance the government’s substantial
interest? (4) Is the regulation narrowly tailored? If the
speech is fraudulent, illegal and misleading, then it is not
protected commercial speech.
The Central Hudson test involves intermediate scrutiny

analysis, as the government only has to invoke a substantial
governmental interest, rather than a compelling
governmental interest, as in a strict scrutiny analysis.
• Commercial speech not only includes the right of the
speaker to speak but also the right of the listener to
receive information. Even if this type of speech is
protected, it does not mean that it is immune from
government regulation. Commercial speech is entitled
to less protection than political speech and can be
regulated if false or misleading. Unlike with political
speech, the truth of which may be difficult to ascertain,
the Court thought commercial advertising to be more
objective and thus subject to determination of its truth
content. (Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v.
Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S.
748 [1976])
Transfer of appropriations
under Art. VI, §25(5)
The transfer of appropriated funds, to be valid under
Section 25(5), must be made upon a concurrence of the
following requisites, namely:
(1) There is a law authorizing the President, the President

of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of
the Constitutional Commissions to transfer funds within
their respective offices; (2) The funds to be transferred are
savings generated from the appropriations for their
respective offices; and (3) The purpose of the transfer is to
augment an item in the general appropriations law for their
respective offices.
The cross-border transfers of the savings of the Executive to

augment the appropriations of other offices outside the
Executive;
Cross-border augmentations from savings are prohibited by
the Constitution. (Underscoring supplied)
By providing that the President, the President of the

Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Heads of the
Constitutional Commissions may be authorized to augment
any item in the GAA "for their respective offices," Section
25(5), supra, has delineated borders between their offices,
such that funds appropriated for one office are prohibited
from crossing over to another office even in the guise of
augmentation of a deficient item or items. Thus, we call
such transfers of funds cross-border transfers or cross-
border augmentations. (Underscoring supplied)
The phrase “respective offices” used in
Section 25(5), refers to the entire Executive,
with respect to the President; the Senate,
with respect to the Senate President; the
House of Representatives, with respect to
the Speaker; the Judiciary, with respect to
the Chief Justice; the Constitutional
Commissions, with respect to their
respective Chairpersons. (Bersamin, J., for
the majority of the Court, in Araullo v.
Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, 2 July 2014, 728
SCRA 1)
Mandatory Reporting of Notifiable

Diseases and Health Events of
Public Health Concern Act
• Pursuant to the policy of the State enshrined under
Section 15, Article II of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution — to protect and promote the right to
health of the people and instill health consciousness
among them, Republic Act No. 11332, otherwise
known as the “Mandatory Reporting of Notifiable
Diseases and Health Events of Public Health Concern
Act (RA 11332) was enacted in 2019.
• Declaration of Policy: Art. II, §15. The right to
health of the people and to instill health
consciousness among them.
• The State also recognizes disease surveillance

and response systems of the Department of
Health (DOH) and its local counterparts, as the
first line of defense to epidemics and health
events of public health concern that pose risk to
public health and security. (Underscoring
supplied)
• Rep. Act No. 11332 aims, among others, to
establish effective mechanisms for strong
collaboration with national and local
government health agencies to ensure proper
procedures are in place to promptly respond to
reports of notifiable diseases and health events
of public health concern, including case
investigations, treatment, and control and
containment, including follow-up activities.
• Under this Act, the DOH and its local
counterparts are mandated to implement the
mandatory reporting of notifiable diseases and
health events of public health concern, among
others.
Section 4. Objectives. -This Act shall have the following
objectives:
...
(d) To provide accurate and timely health information
about notifiable diseases, and health-related events and
conditions to citizens and health providers as an integral
part of response to public health emergencies;
(e) To establish effective mechanisms for strong
collaboration with national and local government health
agencies to ensure proper procedures are in place to
promptly respond to reports of notifiable diseases and
health events of public health concern, including case
investigations, treatment, and control and containment,
including follow-up activities;
(f) To ensure that public health authorities have the
statutory and regulatory authority to ensure the following:
(1) Mandatory reporting of reportable diseases and
health events of public health concern;
(2) Epidemic/outbreaks and/or epidemiologic
investigation, case investigations, patient interviews, review
of medical records, contact tracing, specimen collection and
testing, risk assessments, laboratory investigation,
population surveys, and environmental investigation;
(3) Quarantine and isolation; and
(4) Rapid containment and implementation of measures
for disease prevention and control; (Underscoring
supplied)
… (h) To require public and private physicians, allied medical
personnel, professional societies, hospitals, clinics, health
facilities, laboratories, pharmaceutical companies, private
companies and institutions, workplaces, schools, prisons, ports,
airports, establishments, communities, other government
agencies, and nongovernment organizations (NGOs) to actively
participate in disease surveillance and response; and
(i) To respect to the fullest extent possible, the rights of people to
liberty, bodily integrity, and privacy while maintaining and
preserving public health and security. (Underscoring supplied)
Under this Act:
(b) The DOH and its local counterparts shall establish and
maintain functional disease surveillance and response systems,
which include coordination mechanisms, implementation
protocols for reporting and response, measures for data security
and confidentiality, and procedures and provision to ensure
safety of personnel conducting disease surveillance and response
activities;
(e) To perform their disease surveillance and response
functions, authorized health personnel from the DOH and
its local counterparts have the statutory and regulatory
authority to enforce the following:
(1) Establishment of public health information
system disease surveillance and response systems in private
and public facilities deemed necessary to protect the health
of the population in coordination with the DOH-
Epidemiology Bureau;
...
(4) Rapid containment, quarantine and isolation,
disease prevention and control measures, and product
recall;
(5) Response activities for events of public health
concern; (Underscoring supplied)
(f) The DOH and its local counterparts shall ensure that all
surveillance and response officers have adequate capacity
for mandatory reporting of notifiable diseases, risk
assessment, epidemiology, disease surveillance, and
response to epidemics and health events of public health
concern. It shall also ensure that the safety and protection
of all personnel directly involved in surveillance and
response activities are upheld; and
(g) All personnel of the DOH and its local counterparts, and
all other individuals or entities involved in conducting
disease surveillance and response activities shall respect, to
the fullest extent possible, the rights of people to liberty,
bodily integrity, and privacy while maintaining and
preserving public health and security. (Underscoring
supplied)
• Section 7 of RA 11332 provides that the
President of the Republic of the
Philippines shall declare a State of Public
Health Emergency in the event of an
epidemic of national and/or international
concern which threatens national security
in order to mobilize governmental and
nongovernmental agencies to respond to
the threat.
Section 9. Prohibited Acts. -The following shall be
prohibited under this Act:
(a)Unauthorized disclosure of private and

confidential information pertaining to a
patient’s medical condition or treatment;
(b) Tampering of records or intentionally

providing misinformation;
(c) Non-operation of the disease surveillance and

response systems;
(d) Non-cooperation of persons and entities that
should report and/or respond to notifiable
diseases or health events of public concern; and
(e) Non-cooperation of the person or entities
identified as having the notifiable disease, or
affected by the health event of public concern.
Disclosure of confidential information will not be
considered violation of this Act under this section if
the disclosure was made to comply with a legal order
issued by a court of law with competent jurisdiction.
• The government response to the coronavirus
pandemic includes the policy on self-quarantine.
When an individual does not self-quarantine in
case of infection, he or she may be liable under
§9(d) of Rep. Act No. 11332, for non-cooperation
of persons and entities that should report and/or
respond to notifiable diseases or health events of
public concern.
Section 10. Penalties. -Any person or
entity found to have violated Section 9 of
this Act shall be penalized with a fine of not
less than Twenty thousand pesos
(₱20,000.00) but not more than Fifty
thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) or
imprisonment of not less than one (1) month
but not more than six (6) months, or both
such fine and imprisonment, at the
discretion of the proper court.
Comments on
Does the government
requirement of disclosure of
patient information violate a
person’s right to privacy under
Rep. Act No. 10173 (Data
Privacy Act of 2012)?
§6(g), in rel. to §9(a) and §9(2)
• All personnel of the DOH and its local counterparts, and

all other individuals or entities involved in conducting
disease surveillance and response activities shall respect,
to the fullest extent possible, the rights of people to
liberty, bodily integrity, and privacy while maintaining
and preserving public health and security. (Rep. Act No.
11332, §6([g])
§6(g), in rel. to §9(a) and §9(2)
• Prohibited Acts. -The following shall be prohibited
under this Act:
• (a) Unauthorized disclosure of private and
confidential information pertaining to a patient’s
medical condition or treatment (Rep. Act No.
11332, §6([a])
• Disclosure of confidential information will not be
considered violation of this Act under this section
if the disclosure was made to comply with a legal
order issued by a court of law with competent
jurisdiction. (Rep. Act No. 11332, §6([2])
Health and medical records
contain sensitive personal
information that are protected
under the Data Privacy Act
Rights of a Data Subject
under Rep. Act No. 10173
• Right to Information
• Right to Access
• Right to Object
• Right to Rectify, Erase & Block
• Rights related to Profiling & Automated
Decision-Making
• Right to Data Portability
• Right to an Effective Remedy
• Right to Compensation
Rep. Act No. 10173, in rel. to
Rep. Act No. 11332
• To ensure compliance with the Data Privacy
Act, in rel. to Rep. Act No. 11332, there are
two remedies that may be pursued:
1) obtain a lawful order of a court of law;
or
2) obtain the consent of the patient, as the
data subject, to waive confidentiality on his
health or medical records.
Implementation of Rep. Act
No. 11332 and Rep. Act No.
11469, by Local Government
Units at the barangay level
Rep. Act 11469 and Rep. Act No. 11332, in
conjunction with Rep. Act No. 7160
(The Local Government Code), §105
• Direct National Supervision and Control by the Secretary
of Health. - In cases of epidemics, pestilence, and other
widespread public health dangers, the Secretary of
Health may, upon the direction of the President and in
consultation with the local government unit concerned,
temporarily assume direct supervision and control over
health operations in any local government unit for the
duration of the emergency, but in no case exceeding a
cumulative period of six (6) months. With the
concurrence of the government unit concerned, the
period for such direct national control and supervision
may be further extended. (Rep. Act No. 7160, §105)
The Law Dealing with National
Emergencies due to Public Health
Concerns: A Recapitulation
Constitutional Provisions
• Right to Health, Article II, §15
• Emergency Powers, Art. VI, §23(2)
• Power to transfer appropriations, Art. VI, §25(5)
• Commander-in-Chief powers, Art. VII, §18
• Power of the State during national emergencies to
temporarily take over or direct the operation of
any privately-owned public utility or business
affected with public interest. , Art. XII, §17
• Power of general supervision over Local
Government Units (LGUs) by the President, Art.
X, §4
Constitutional Provisions
• Bill of Rights, esp. Art. III, §4

• Grave Abuse Clause, Art. VIII, §1
• Local autonomy and decentralization of
administration of LGUs, Art. X, §§2, 3, & 5
Presidential Issuances
• Presidential Proclamation No. 922

(Proclaiming a State of Public Health
Emergency)
• Pres. Proclamation No. 929 (Proclaiming a

State of Calamity)
Statutes by Congress
• Republic Act No. 11469, & its Implementing
Rules and Regulations (The Bayanihan Heal
As One Act)
• Rep. Act No. 11332, & its Implementing Rules
and Regulations (The Mandatory Reporting
of Notifiable Diseases and Health Events of
Public Concern Act)
• Rep. Act No. 7160, as amended (The Local
Government Code of 1991), §105
• Rep. Act No. 10173 (The Data Privacy Act)
Supreme Court Jurisprudence
• Araneta v. Dinglasan, 84 Phil. 369 (1949)
• Lansang v. Garcia, G.R. No. 33964, 11
December 1971, 42 SCRA 448
• Integrated Bar of the Philippines v.
Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, 15 August
2000, 338 SCRA 81
• Lacson v. Perez, G.R. No. 147780, 10 May
2001, 357 SCRA 756
• Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
159085, 3 February 2004, 421 SCRA 656
Supreme Court Jurisprudence
• David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, 3 May 2006, 489
SCRA 160
• Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579
(1952)
• Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, 2 July 2014, 728
SCRA 1
• MVRS Publications, Inc. v. Islamic Da’wah Council of
the Philippines, G.R. No. 135306, 28 January 2003, 396
SCRA 210 citing Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444
(1969)
• Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, 15 February 2008,
545 SCRA 441
• Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R. Nos. 231658, 231771,
231774, 4 July 2017
• Lagman v. Pimentel, G.R. Nos. 235935, 236061, 236145,
& 236155, 6 February 2018

The Constitution in Times of National Emergency - Pals Lecture Updated

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Constitution in Times of National Emergency - Pals Lecture Updated

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE CONSTITUTION

1) There must be war or other national emergency;

• 1993: Congress passes Rep. Act No. 7648

Source: U.S. Department of Defense

Source: U.S. Department of Defense Dictionary

• Art. XII, §17 (Power of the State during national emergencies

Art. VIII, §1, as a legal remedy in cases

• Art. VI, §25(5) (Power to transfer

• Legislative power, through which

• The suspension of the privilege of the writ

• The power to determine the sufficiency of the

• The Court, in a proper case, may look into

• David v. Arroyo, G.R. 171396, 3 May

But the exercise of emergency powers, such as the

First Quarter of 2020

(December 2019 – April 2020)

The W.H.O. declared a global health emergency.

The first case of the disease was confirmed in the

The Research Institute for Tropical Medicine

The first death from the disease in the

Repatriates from Wuhan were quarantined at the New

The Department of Health confirmed that the fifth case was

President Duterte formally declared a state

The President also suspended all classes, in

Vice President Leni G. Robredo on March 12

President Duterte announces a partial lockdown

• March 16, 2020

• March 19, 2020

The President addressed the nation through the House

Malacañang asked Congress, on March 22, to declare a

• March 24, 2020

The President approved the

• The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate

• Power to suspend the privilege of the writ

• Martial law power

• Art. VI, §23, par. 1. The Congress, by a vote of

• Emergency powers reposed in Congress

• Delegated to the President

Bayanihan to Heal as One Act

Republic Act No. 11469

• regulating and limiting operation of private or

• Undertake such other measures as may be

Two-Part Analysis of §6(f)

First Part: False information

Overbroad (Overbreadth doctrine)

• A law is overbroad if it substantially

• In specific instances, §6(f) may be impugned if it violates

• If not “clearly geared” to promote the

A governmental action that restricts freedom of

• Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616

The Court held that the government cannot punish

• There are three elements of this test:

- MVRS Publications, Inc. v. Islamic Da’wah

- Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in United

– Justice Louis D. Brandeis,

Second Part: Cyber Incidents

• Those participating in cyber incidents that

• What are “Cyber Incidents”?

• Commercial speech has limited constitutional

• At the outset, we must determine whether the expression is

The Central Hudson test involves intermediate scrutiny

(1) There is a law authorizing the President, the President

The cross-border transfers of the savings of the Executive to