DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW

Lasallian Commission on Bar Operations

Academics Committee

TRANSCRIPT OF DEAN JOHN PAOLO A. VILLASOR’S

ONLINE LECTURE ON THE CONSTITUTION IN TIMES
OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY

DISCLAIMER: DLSU College of Law’s LCBO Academics Committee does not take credit for the
online lecture conducted by Dean John Paolo A. Villasor and hosted by the Philippine Association
of Law School’s (PALS) Facebook page on April 24, 2020. This written transcript was made in order
to aid law students in their review and for those students who may have had difficulty in watching
the said online lecture. The contents of this transcript are based solely on the said online lecture.

Page 1 of 22
 - TRANSCRIPT BEGINS –

 Good afternoon to all. Our lecture for today involves the Constitution in times of national
Emergency. We live in turbulent times. It is in these times when certain responses must be
made especially by our governmental authorities. Even in times of national emergency,
even in turbulent times, the Constitution remains operative.

 The challenge that we face when it comes to living by the principles of Constitutionalism,
is to strike a balance – a delicate balance – between the liberty and security provisions of
the Constitution.

 I would like to call this as somewhat of balancing the Constitutional tightrope, as to mean
the Constitution of Liberty and the Constitution of Government. Likewise, this lecture
attempts to put some sense out of a seemingly chaotic situation. (Connection problems)

 We will weather the storm. We all are in (sic) this together and rather than be divided this
is the time to be united. In that spirit of unity, we need to balance the needs of liberty and
security as embodied in our Constitution.

 Now the first question on your mind, in all our minds, is: What is a national emergency? A
national emergency is an emergency that connotes the existence of certain conditions
national in scope and magnitude, suddenly intensifying, existing dangers to life, as well
as to the security of the State.

 A national emergency would coincide with a situation where a nation may be at

peril. The life and the security of the nation is at peril beyond the degree of what
we normally do.

 In other words, in a national emergency, our normal lives are disrupted. So this
disruption from our normal way of life calls for extraordinary measures and these
extraordinary measures in times of national emergency are the emergency
powers that are reposed in our Congress and delegated to our President, who is
the Chief Executive of the Republic of the Philippines.

 As contemplated by the Constitution, the Supreme Court said that these emergency
conditions may include rebellion, invasion, lawless violence, economic crisis, pestilence,
pandemics, typhoons, floods, and other natural disasters, and other similar types of
catastrophic events of nationwide proportions or effect.

 Now, in a national emergency as perceived by our legislature or our Chief Executive, is

occasioned by a wide range of situations which may be classified into three principal
kinds:

(1.) First involves an economic emergency;

(2.) Second involves a natural disaster emergency; and

(3.) Third involves national security.

Page 1 of 22
 Now, as our discussion goes on, we will have a categorization of national emergencies
and I would like everyone to pay close attention to it. It is important that we are able to
characterize the national emergency that has arisen in order to come up with the
appropriate solutions to resolving and ending that national emergency.

 From a Constitutional standpoint, a national emergency is a crisis of national proportions

that threatens the peace, good order, security, and safety of a nation. A national
emergency requires a swift and decisive response to meet the exigencies of the moment.

 Now, you make ask: Which branch of government does the Constitution repose
emergency powers? Or, which branch of government is the repository of emergency
powers? Clearly, Congress is authorized by the Constitution to delegate such emergency
powers to the President. This is the constitutional basis of national emergency which is
laid down in Article 6, section 23, paragraph 2 of the Constitution.

 Under what conditions can emergency powers be exercised? The following conditions
must concur with the exercise of emergency powers, under Article 6 (sic), section 23,
paragraph 2 of the Constitution:

(1.) First (sic), there must be war or other national emergency;

(2.) Second, Congress must authorize the President to exercise emergency powers for a
limited period;

(3.) Third, the authority granted to the President to exercise emergency powers must be
subject to the restrictions prescribed by the Constitution;

(4.) Fourth (sic), the powers must be necessary and proper to meet the existing
emergency.

(5.) Finally, these emergency powers must be exercised to carry out a declared national
policy.

 Under David v. Arroyo, there were only four requisites that were contained therein. But,
for purposes of this lecture and for purposes of understanding fully the conditions by
which emergency powers can be invoked, it should contain at least one more condition.
David v. Arroyo only provided for four. In this discussion, we provided for a fifth condition:
the powers must be necessary and proper to meet the existing emergency.

 What are the powers exercised by the President in times of national emergency? The
President under Article 7 of the Constitution exercises Executive Power. Under Article 7,
section 1, the executive power is vested in the President of the Republic of the Philippines.
However, the powers provided for under (sic) Article 7 are the regular or ordinary powers
that are given to the President (connection problems) in times of stability. However, there
are certain powers that are delegated by Congress to the President. These are emergency
powers that are necessary and proper to meet the existing emergency.

 The regular powers or the ordinary powers of the President in Article 7 includes:

(1.) The power of appointment;

Page 2 of 22
 (2.) The power of general supervision over local government units;

(3.) The power of control over the agencies, bureaus, and offices under the Executive
Department;

(4.) The Commander-In-Chief powers which are express powers provided for under Article
7, Section 18; and

(5.) The powers by necessary implication by these express or ordinary powers of the
President.

 With respect to national emergency powers, we cannot over-emphasize the

importance of Congress in delegating its legislative power to the President to meet
the exigencies of the times.

 Now, let’s discuss the Constitutional history of national emergencies. In our discussion, we
are looking at the use of national emergency powers from the 1940s up to the present.

 In 1944, you would have a declaration of martial law by then (sic) President Jose P. Laurel
during the Japanese Occupation of the Philippines. The declaration of the state of martial
law included as well the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

 In 1949, President Elpidio Quirino suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in
some parts of Luzon to quell the rebellion of the Hukbalahap guerillas.

 Commonwealth Act No. 671, which was known as the Emergency Powers Act, was passed
by Congress declaring a State of Total Emergency. Commonwealth Act No. 671 was
enacted before the war, and so for the duration of the war, there was a State of Total
Emergency by the government in exile led by President Quezon and Vice-President
Osmeña. So, a State of Total Emergency as a result of the second World War was declared,
and authorized then (sic) President Quezon to promulgate rules and regulations to meet
the emergency. Later on, during the Japanese Occupation, President Jose P. Laurel (sic)
declared martial law to restore order in the Philippines and well, with the impending
invasion of the (sic) Allied Forces, martial law was declared to protect law and order.

 In 1971, President Marcos suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the
entire country in the aftermath of the Plaza Miranda bombing. After which, a proclamation
was made declaring martial law one year after. So, the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus was suspended on (sic) August 21, 1971 one year later on (sic) September 23, 1972,
martial law was declared in the entire philippines.

 In 1989, the aftermath of the 1989 coup attempt against the administration of President
Corazon Aquino, President Aquino a few days later – about a week later – the coup
attempt was launched on December 1st, and President Aquino made a proclamation
declaring a State of Emergency. After which, two weeks later, Congress passed Republic
Act No. 6826 granting emergency powers to the President.

 In (sic) 1993, Congress passed Republic Act No. 7648 declaring a national emergency due
to the electric power crisis prevalent in the Philippines at that time. This was eventually
signed by President Fidel V. Ramos. President Ramos certified as urgent the Electric Power
Crisis Act to be able to meet that emergency – that economic (connection problems)

Page 3 of 22
 During the time of President Arroyo (connection problems), as well as (connection
problems) a state of emergency due to (connection problems) 2006 (connection problems)
the situation, therefore she declared a state of emergency with some alleged (connection
problems) military (connection problems) 2009, state of emergency in certain provinces
(connection problems) preventing and suppressing lawless forms (connection problems)
to declare the state of martial law in the province of Maguindanao. She likewise suspend
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus therein.

 Now, in recent times, in 2017 times which we are more familiar with because there are of
recent vintage, President Rodrigo Duterte proclaimed a state of martial and suspended
the privilege fo the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao due to incidents involving the ISIS
siege of Marawi. 2018, martial law was extended one year later.

 Now, for the present time, well, Presidential Proclamation No. 922 which was issued earlier
this year, proclaimed a State of Public Health Emergency. In which, Republic Act No. 11332
was rendered operative to meet the public health emergency. Few days later, a State of
Calamity was proclaimed. Subsequently, after these two presidential proclamations,
Congress enacted Republic Act No. 11469 which declared a State of National Emergency.
It was Congress this time that declared a State of National Emergency which provided
emergency powers that are necessary and proper for the President to meet the national
emergency.

 Now, at this point I want (sic) to share my observations regarding this series of
declarations.

 If you will notice, since the 1940s, there were only two instances that did not require the
outright exercise of the commander-in-chief powers of the Constitution. The declared
emergency necessitated in these two instances were either an economic or civil defense
response in this situations: First was the economic emergency in 1989 involving the Electric
Power Crisis Act, and second, the public health emergency that we are now currently
experiencing in order to address this global pandemic brought about by the coronavirus
disease. Note that these are the only two instances that did not invoke the commander-
in-chief powers. 12 out of 14 situations which we discussed involved the invocation of the
commander-in-chief powers.

 Now let’s look at the different categories of national emergencies.

(1.) The first category involves (sic) national emergencies necessitating a military defense
response.

(2.) The second category involves national emergencies necessitating a civil defense
response.

(3.) The third category involves a national emergency necessitating an economic

response. If the economy is on the verse of collapse, certain extraordinary powers may
be required (connection problems) if there is an economic recession looming that would
address the seeming need for an economic relief package.

Page 4 of 22
 Now let’s define these three categories:

 A civil defense or civil protection emergency contemplates measures to protect

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, epidemics or pandemics, typhoons, floods, or other similar
catastrophes.

 A military defense emergency is an emergency condition necessitating the use of

military force – military defensive force – that exists when a major attack is made
to the armed forces either through lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion, where
the security of the state, including the lives of the people, are in danger.

 Finally, an economic emergency contemplates the situation where emergency

measures are resorted to in order to avert an economic crisis and restore the
stability of the national economy, prevent a recession, and avert widespread
chaos and economic dislocation.

 May I call your attention to an important aspect of the law on national emergencies:
Judicial Review. It is important for both lawyers, law students and aspiring lawyers to
know the legal remedies that can be resorted to in court in order to vindicate or recognize
rights.

 When it comes to judicial review, Article 8, section 1 is the flagship provision, laying down
(sic) the Constitutional basis for judicial review, especially when a branch or
instrumentality of the (sic) government commits an act that is tainted with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. This is known in Section 1 as the
“grave abuse clause” – that is the second part of Article 8, section 1.

 So, the grave abuse clause must be read in relation to Article 6, section 23, paragraph 2
on the delegation of emergency powers of Congress to the President as well as Article 7,
section 18 of the Constitution involving the commander-in-chief powers in questioning the
sufficiency of the factual basis on the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus or the declaration of martial law.

 Likewise, the grave abuse clause may be used in relation to Article 12, section 17 which
involves the 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. Likewise, the grave abuse clause involves the protection of the bill of rights.

 One provision that may be subject to judicial review… (connection problems) Araneta v.
Dinglasan, the court… (connection problems) The ruling however in Montenegro v.
Castenada was overruled in Lansang v. Garcia.

 Lansang v. Garcia is a significant case. It is significant jurisprudence because the power

of judicial review, which the court discussed in Lansang v. Garcia, found its way into Article
7, section 18 on the commander-in-chief powers especially with respect to a review of the
sufficiency of the factual basis for the declaration of martial law. It should be noted that
in Lansang v. Garcia, what was brought to the fore was the issue of whether the

Page 5 of 22
 suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus by the President is subject to
judicial review. And so, the Supreme Court here held that the power to determine the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is a justiciable question which the court is empowered to determine. However, in
the findings of the court in Lansang, the ruling provided for judicial review on the
determination on the sufficiency of the factual basis for the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus, the court eventually deemed the suspension to be not
unconstitutional with respect to the Plaza Miranda bombing.

 Now in Lansang, this is what the court laid down. Article 7 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 its 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 Constitution, or the basic law.

 The authority to determine whether or not he (referring to the Chief Executive) has acted
(within the sphere allotted to him by the Constitution) is vested in the Judicial Department,
which in this respect, is in turn Constitutionally supreme.

 In the exercise of such authority, the function of the court is merely to check in accordance
with the system of checks and balances and not to supplant the executive, or (in other
words) to assert 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 protested 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 powers of the court of origin (Lansang v. Garcia).

 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 high 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 and mass destruction
of property. Although the court, in a proper case, may look into the sufficient of the factual
basis of this power – the calling out 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 (IBP v. Zamora).

 It was rendered moot and academic because the President lifted that order calling out
the Armed Forces. 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 as
Proclamation No. 38 has been lifted in Lacson v. Perez – a state of rebellion was declared.

 But may I invite your attention to this case: Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary where Justice
Tinga clearly laid down the doctrine of the commander-in-chief powers. Article 7, Section

Page 6 of 22
 18 grants the President as commander-in-chief a sequence of graduated powers, from the
most to the least benign. These are:

(1.) The calling out power;

(2.) The power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; and

(3.) The power to declare martial law.

 In the matter of the exercise of the latter two powers (suspension of habeas corpus and
declaration of martial law), the Constitution requires the concurrence of two conditions,
namely:

(a.) an actual invasion or rebellion; and

(b.) that public safety requires the exercise of such power.

 However as we observed in IBP v. Zamora, these conditions are not required in the
exercise of the calling out power. The only criteria is that whenever it becomes necessary,
the President may call the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion,
or rebellion.

 In all three instances, from the most to the least benign, from the prevention or
suppression of lawless violence to invasion, to rebellion, the power of judicial review may
be exercised by the Supreme Court in determining the sufficiency of the factual basis for
the exercise of these powers.

 In calling out the armed forces, a declaration of a state of rebellion is an utter superfluity.
These are the words of Justice Tinga speaking for the Supreme Court En Banc. A
declaration for 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 wreck emotional effects upon the perceived
enemies of the state, even on the entire nation, but this Court’s (SC) 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 (connection problems)
the declaration is (connection problems) deemed (connection problems).

 Now we go to David v. Arroyo which is instructive on the power of judicial review. In David
v. Arroyo, there was a challenge as to the Constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation
No. 1017 involving (sic) a declaration of a state of emergency. The Supreme Court held
that Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 is constitutional in so far as it constitutes a call by
President Arroyo on the Armed Forces of the Philippines to prevent or suppress lawless
violence.

 However, the provisions of Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 commanding the

Armed Forces of the Philippines commanding obedience to laws not related to
lawless violence promulgated by the President is unconstitutional.

 The President likewise cannot take over privately-owned utility (sic) or business
affected with public interest without prior legislation.

Page 7 of 22
  Please note ladies and gentlemen, that when we read Article 12, section 17, the
operative phrase there is the “the State” – it is not the President, it is not the
Congress – it is the Congress enacting an emergency powers law and delegating
the implementation of the emergency powers to the President. So, the power to
grant emergency measures come from Congress, but is delegated to the President
in so far as Article 12, section 17, in relation to Article 6, section 23, paragraph 2 is
concerned.

 It is clear that Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 is not a declaration of martial

law. It is merely an exercise of President Arroyo’s calling out power of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines to preventing or suppressing lawless violence.

 President Arroyo could validly declare the existence of a state of a national

emergency even in the absence of a Congressional enactment.

 The exercise of emergency powers such as the taking over of privately-owned

utility or business affected with public interest (sic) requires a valid delegation of
legislative power from Congress.

 Courts have often said that Constitutional provisions in pare 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 12 and Section 23 of Article 6 previously quoted

relate to national emergencies, they must be read together to determine the limitation of
the exercise of emergency powers. These emergency powers must always be narrowly
tailored especially if it violates the Bill of Rights because then, it would have (sic) to
undergo the strict scrutiny test. Generally, Congress is the repository of emergency
powers. This is evident in the tenor of Section 23, paragraph 2 of Article 6, authorizing it
to delegate such powers to the President. Certainly, a body cannot delegate a power not
reposed upon it.

 Now, this is the Youngstown case (American jurisprudence) which is in all fours with the
taking over of a private business. In David v. Arroyo, it involved the Daily Tribute. In the
Youngstown case, in involved [ummm] in April 1952, President Harry S. Truman issued an
Executive Order directing the 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 Steel Workers of America. The Court held that the
President did not have the authority to issue such 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 Company v. Sawyer).

 Now of recent vintage is Lagman v. Medialdea, involving Proclamation No. 216.

Proclamation No. 216 was declared not unconstitutional on the ground that there was
factual basis for the declaration – that there was a rebellion and public safety requires it.
In 2018, that threat still existed, so the rebellion still existed, so the extension of martial
law under Proclamation No. 216 was questioned. The Court ruled that the rebellion

Page 8 of 22
 persisted as to satisfy the first condition for the extension of martial law or for the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and public safety requires it under
the second condition for the extension.

 Let’s go back to the present day public health concerns especially since the first quarter
of 2020. Now, from my notes I placed a factual timeline but at this point I will just
summarize this timeline. So the timeline starts from December 2019 until the present, April
2020:

 As of December 12, 2019 the first people exhibited the symptoms of a flu-like illness
that was first identified in Wuhan, China. But at that point, little did everybody
know that it would be a serious threat to public health beyond the borders of, in
fact even Wuhan, of that hospital (sic).

 But it was on December 30, 2019 when the Director of the Emergency Department
of the Wuhan Central Hospital, Dr. Ai Fen, received some very disturbing medical
reports involving a patient which was labeled “SARS-coronavirus”. Dr. Ai Fen was
the first doctor who ordered tests on these early coronavirus patients. Based on
this report by Dr. Ai Fen, another doctor, an ophthalmologist Dr. Li Wenliang, was
alarmed and after reading the patient’s report from Dr. Ai Fen who encircled the
word “SARS” in her report. Dr. Li Wenliang warned colleagues about a new
coronavirus strain via social media, in this case, from the WeChat platform. Dr. Ai
Fen in an interview mentioned that she was not the whistleblower in the case. She
identified herself as the person who gave the whistle, but not the whistleblower
herself (sic). It was Dr. Li Wenliang who informed his colleagues and the entire
world of this new strain of the SARS coronavirus.

 By December 31st, China alerts the World Health Organization to this new type of
pneumonia-like symptoms of this respiratory disease. So flu-like cases came
about, and there was an outbreak of pneumonia affecting patients and citizens in
Wuhan. Chinese authorities on the last day of the year treated many cases –
dozens of cases – of pneumonia which was of unknown cause. The government in
Wuhan confirmed that health authorities were treating dozens of cases.

 By January 2020, they closed gateways, they traced this unknown virus to a
seafood market in Wuhan. And so, the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in
Wuhan was ordered closed by Chinese authorities on January 1st, 2020.

 By January 3rd, China ports in Singapore began screening passengers who

entered Singapore. It was the first airport to do so. So, temperature screening was
made – thermal detectors – to determine signs of illness.

 Now from January 7 until the present, there was a progression of event as it
spread throughout the entire world – from Wuhan to the other parts of China, to
other parts of the world – and, well, unfortunately, the Philippines earns the
historical ignominy to have the first case of the disease within its shores which was
a 38-year old Chinese woman in January 30, the first case outside China was in the
Philippines. On that date, January 30th, the World Health Organization declared a
Global Health Emergency.

Page 9 of 22
  So, screening tests were conducted. But once again, another historical fact is that
on February 2nd, the first death outside of China and the first death in the
Philippines was recorded – on the 2nd February, the 38-year old Chinese woman,
and there were many, many cases.

 So March 9th, President Duterte formally declared a State of Public Health

Emergency and announced a partial lockdown – a community quarantine. Vice-
President Robredo likewise addressed the public about the coronavirus disease.

 Now, from the series of progressions from a general Community Quarantine to the
present Enhanced Community Quarantine. Two declarations were made: a State
of Public Health Emergency, as well as a State of Calamity.

 In the state of calamity, what is operative here is that a state of calamity

involves a natural disaster and oftentimes in a state of calamity it is the
National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council that is called
upon. But in this case, a state of public health emergency requires a public
health response and an Inter-Agency Task Force for Emerging Infectious
Diseases was convened by the President.

 Now we spoke about Dr. Ai Fen on December 30th, by March 29th, she was
reportedly missing in China. Now extensions are a bit prevalent. There was an
extension two weeks ago, however, let me just update everyone: two laws were
passed, one in 2019 and one earlier this year. The first law was Republic Act No.
11332 and the second law was Republic Act No. 11469.

 Republic Act No. 11332 addresses a public health emergency. The additional powers were
asked by the President to fully address the situation.

 Now, we will get to Republic Act No. 11469 in a few minutes, however may I just update
you on the recent events which transpired just today. So the President just approved the
extension of the Enhanced Community Quarantine in several cities and provinces
nationwide until May 15, 2020. Now, these are the high-risk areas.

 You may ask, 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 to this category – the category of a national
emergency necessitating a civil defense response? A public health emergency such as the
coronavirus pandemic necessitates the expertise of medical doctors, and allied medical
professionals, as well as public health authorities. Preferably, epidemiologist and
infectious disease experts, as well as other specialists as the lead agents in a national
public health crisis which now threatens the right to health of the people, under Article 2,
Section 15 of the Constitution.

 The government response has been threefold:

(1.) First, was the declaration of the State of Public Health Emergency involved in
Presidential Proclamation No. 922, which rendered operative Republic Act No. 11332;
second (sic);

Page 10 of 22
 (2.) The declaration of a State of Calamity, under Presidential Proclamation No. 929; and

(3.) Third (sic), the enactment of Republic Act No. 11469 which is read in relation to
Republic Act No. 11332.

 Now we have discussed the types of emergency powers:

(1.) First, you have the commander-in-chief powers in case of invasion or rebellion when
the public safety requires it.

(2.) Then, there is a declaration of a state of war, as in Araneta v. Dinglasan, which is a

power reposed exclusively in Congress. Congress has the sole authority to declare a state
of war.

(3.) And, another type of emergency powers involves the declaration of a State of
Emergency which is exercised by the President upon prior authorization by Congress.

 Now, I just want you to look at these provisions: Article 6, Section 18 – the commander-in-
chief clause.

 Now we have likewise discussed the graduated powers of the commander-in-chief

clause: the calling out power, the power to suspend the privilege the writ of habeas
corpus, and the martial law power – from the most to the least benign of powers
as categorized by Justice Tinga.

 Likewise, the Constitutional basis of the declaration of the granting of emergency

powers is Article 6, Section 23, paragraph 2.

 The power of Congress to declare a state of war, is under Article 6, Section 23,
paragraph 1.

 We likewise discussed Article 12, Section 17 involving 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. We cannot over-emphasize the fact that emergency powers…
(connection problems)

 Now let’s look at Republic Act No. 11469 – the Bayanihan to Heal as One Act, which I would
like to call the Emergency Powers Law of 2020. It may come in the form of special powers
or authorized powers, but just the same, the purpose of the law is to meet the existing
public health emergency.

 Now in my notes I mentioned these laws as well as pertinent provisions. I want you to
have a look at those but let me invite your intention to, well, aside from the declared
national policy, let me invite your attention to the construction or interpretation of the law
under Section 7 therein:

“Nothing in Republic Act No. 11469 shall be construed as an impairment, restriction, or

modification of the provisions of the Constitution. In case of the exercise of the powers

Page 11 of 22
 herein granted conflicts with other statutes, orders, rules, or regulations, the provisions of
this Act shall prevail”.

 Note that consistent with Marbury v. Madison, if there is a conflict between the
Constitution and provision of law, it is the Constitution that prevails.

 But in addition to that, with respect to other laws, Republic Act No. 11469 and its provisions
would prevail. “With respect to other laws”, and not the Constitution. It’s the Constitution
that is the standard or the measure of how the emergency powers are defined, limited,
and exercised.

 Now, Section 4 involves authorized powers. But let me just invite your attention further on
certain comments which I have on this law. Generally, the law enjoys a presumption of
Constitutionality. And, in fact, the aim or the purpose of Republic Act No. 11469 in relation
to Republic Act No. 11332 (sic), is to address public health concerns on this global
pandemic, and therefore emergency powers.

 The first order of the day would be to look at Republic Act No. 11332 first, and next (sic)
Republic Act No. 11469.

 In Republic Act No. 11469, it would seem that one authorized power that would prove
useful is perhaps doing away with public bidding in the procurement of protective
personal equipment, as well as medical supplies, ventilators or respirators, in order to
expedite the process. So in terms of medical equipment that is dire need in the Philippines
today – medical supplies, masks, other equipment, ventilators, and so – this would require
extraordinary powers. Because under the normal course of events, this would have to (sic)
undergo through the government procurement law. But because of the exigencies of the
moment, because of the emergency at hand, we need these supplies at the earliest
possible time and therefore emergency powers can be exercised to obtain or procure
these either in the form of donations or in the form of outright purchases.

 Now at this time let me just invite your attention to my further comments on Republic Act
No. 11469. I actually have very few comments on Republic Act No. 11469. In these times,
well, these provisions are well-meaning. However, there are certain provisions that were
not narrowly tailored, and so there are a cause of concern among lawyers especially
Constitutional Law professors. Now, with respect to Republic Act No. 11469, I made a two-
part analysis of Section 6 (f) and this is what section 6 (f) states:

“Individuals or groups creating, perpetrating, or spreading false information regarding

the coronavirus disease 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 pubic through scams,
phishing, fraudulent emails, or other similar acts.”

 Now, the intention of Section 6 (f) may be noble, but it was not narrowly tailored and I will
show you why. I divided it into two parts:

(1.) First involves false information; and

Page 12 of 22
 (2.) Second, those participating in cyber incidents that make use or take advantage of the
crisis situation to prey on the pubic through scams, phishing, fraudulent emails, or other
similar acts.

 Now for the first part, it involves false information. It would seem that a facial challenge
for being Constitutional infirm is readily apparent, in two grounds:

(1.) First involves the vagueness doctrine, and

(2.) Second involves the overbreadth doctrine.

 It is both vague and overbroad, and I will explain why.

 The void for vagueness doctrine may be explained as follows: a statute or a

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 a law.

 (A law is void for vagueness if) an average person cannot generally

determine what persons are regulated, what conducted is prohibited, or
what punishment may be imposed.

 So, it is not clear what constitutes false information. There’s no definition

of what false information is. It likewise suffers the infirmity of overbreadth.

 A law is overbroad if it substantially prohibits conduct protected by the

Constitution, such as forms of protected speech. If you look at false information,
it can fall within the realm of political speech, certain types of information that is
given. Political speech, as we know in our studies of Constitutional Law, has the
highest protection under Article 3, Section 4. Political speech which is a
constitutionally-protected speech may be included in Section 6 (f) on false
information.

 Now, granting that nobody questions the law (sic) based on this facial challenges, could it
be that there is an as-applied challenge? In specific instances, Section 6 (f) (of Republic
Act No. 11469) may be challenged if it violates Article 3, Section 4 (of the Const.) in specific
instances: Firstly, what constitutes false information? Regarding the COVID-19 crisis?
Supposing if its not regarding COVID-19 crisis, if its some other type of ailment? So if
there is false information there must be information that is genuine or information that is
true. So is truth now a defense? Who determines whether the information has any valid or
beneficial effect to the population? So it will now be subject to interpretation. So the law
has to be narrowly tailored to be able to reflect what constitutes false information
especially regarding the COVID-19 crisis, and not just false information on anything.

 Now clearly, when you look at it, the objectives are noble. To curtail (sic) those information
that promote chaos, panic, anarchy, fear, or confusion. Of course, that is the ideal – to
have information that is only truthful. But the language of the law is in this manner. That
the false information that may be given are clearly geared to promote chaos, panic,
anarchy, fear, or confusion. If it is not clearly geared to promote the aforementioned
objectives, is good faith then a defense?

Page 13 of 22
 Now, let’s look at Section 6 (f) of Republic Act No. 11469, and Article 3, Section 4 of the
Constitution on freedom of expession. Now, granting someone is charged under the first
part of Section 6 (f) (of Republic Act No. 11469), it must pass through the crucible of the
clear and present danger test with respect to that information.

 Chavez v. Gonzales: A governmental action that restricts freedom of speech of the press
based on content is given the strictest scrutiny with the government of having the burden
of overcoming the presumed constitutionality by the clear and present danger rule.

 This rule applies equally to all kinds of media including broadcast media. During
that time in 2008, so definitely in 2020, this now includes social media. So my
analogy, Chavez v. Gonzales will apply to social media.

 In the dissenting opinion of Justice Holmes in Abrahams v. United States, in how he

defined what a clear and present danger is, so the clear and present danger test is applied
in this manner: the question in every case is whether the words used are in such
circumstances and of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will
bring about the substantive evils that the Congress has right to prevent. It is a question
of proximity and reprieve.

 So if there is a clear and present danger when it comes to that type of information,
then that speech or information can be suppressed using the clear and present
danger test – if there is clear and present danger.

 Now, may I propose an additional test which is a modification of the clear and present
danger test. It is called the imminent lawless action test, exemplified in Brandenburg v.
Ohio.

 In the imminent lawless action test, the US Supreme Court here held that the
government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to
inciting or producing a lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

 There are three elements of this test:

(1.) That there is an intent to speak;

(2.) There is imminence of lawlessness or imminence of this action; and

(3.) There is likelihood of lawlessness.

 So if the degree of imminence of that lawless action is apparent, it is justified to

suppress that speech. But who determines it? There may be varying interpretations
to that information. Some people may not even mind that sort of information.
Others may take it seriously. But if people of average intelligence interpret the
words, they must create either a clear and present danger or some kind of an
imminent lawless action.

 If in allowing that information to be circulated in social media or to be tolerated,

if imminent lawless action is apparent, then it would be possible to suppress that
speech. But it must pass the crucible of either the clear and present danger test,
or the imminent lawless action test.

Page 14 of 22
 In a Philippine case, the MVRS Publication v. Islamic Da’wah Council of the Philippines,
the imminent lawless action test of Brandenburg v. Ohio was discussed in this manner:
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. So if it is just a mere thought process without any
positive act, then there is no imminent lawless action. But if that thought is translated into
action, then those words or information that was placed in social media is punishable.

 Now, if you will notice, if cases are filed in court based on Section 6 (f) or some other
statute involving false information, false news, or cyber-libel or libel, in many instances
the best remedy is to counter speech with other speech: to counter falsity with the truth,
and this brings us to the counter-speech doctrine. From the words of Justice Anthony
Kennedy, in a decision which best exemplifies the counter-speech doctrine, there is a
remedy of countering bad speech with good speech – of countering negative speech with
positive speech.

 Thus, government should counter false speech with truthful speech as opposed to
engaging in wrong censorship and stark oppression.

 In the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy in United States v. Alvarez which best
exemplifies the counter-speech doctrine: “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 unreason is the rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight out
lie, the simple truth.”

 Justice Brandei in his concurring opinion on Whitney v. California, had this to say
on account (sic) of the counter-speech doctrine: “If there be a time to expose
through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of
education, the remedy to be applied is more speech – not enforced silence”.

 Of course, this type of counter-speech may be rendered operative if there is no

clear and present danger or if there is no imminent lawless action. So counter-
speech, in ordinary cases, may be resorted to but only in cases where there is a
clear and present danger and is (sic) an imminent lawless action, will that speech
be punishable.

 Now, the second part involves cyber incidents through scams, phishing, fraudulent emails,
or other similar acts. If you look through the law, those participating in cyber incidents
that make use of or take advantage of the current crisis situation to prey on the public
through scams, phishing, fraudulent emails, or other similar acts. Now in this case, there
may be a possibility for a facial challenge on the ground of vagueness. Because there is
no definition of what are cyber incidents. What are scams? What is phishing – even if we
do know it – what constitutes fraudulent emails? All has to be narrowly tailored and
Section 6 (f) suffers from this facial infirmities.

 But for the second part on cyber incidents, it suffers from being vague. If you will
notice, Section 6 (f) part two (sic) may be vague, but it is not overbroad. Why is it
not overbroad? Because it limits commercial speech. Unlike political speech,
commercial speech have (sic) limited Constitutional protection.

Page 15 of 22
 Let’s now continue. We are now in the area of commercial speech. Commercial speech has
limited Constitutional protection and I will show you why using the Central Hudson Test.

 Commercial speech has limited Constitutional protection, and thus may be subject to
government regulation. It is entitled to less protected than political speech, and can be
regulated if false or misleading. So Congress had the right idea here to limit commercial
speech, however it just needs to be narrowly tailored. It just needs to be narrowly tailored.
There need (sic) to be definitions on what are cyber incidents, what is phishing, what is
fraudulent emails, and the like.

 At the outset, we must determine whether the speech 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 (sic) and whether it is not
more extensive than necessary to serve that interest (Central Hudson Gas &
Electric Power Corp v. Public Service Commission).

 The Central Hudson Test presents the following questions for the court:

(1.) Does the speech concern a lawful activity and is not misleading?

(2.) If it meets these requirements, then there are three other concerns:

(a.) Does the government have a substantial interest?

(b.) Does the regulation materially and substantially advance the government
substantial interest?

(c.) Is regulation narrowly tailored?

 If the speech is fraudulent, illegal, and misleading, then it is not protected

commercial speech.

 The second part of section 6 (f) has the right idea. You punish commercial speech that is
fraudulent, illegal, and misleading. In other words, people should not be allowed to profit
from the miseries of others – from fraud, from an illegal act, from misleading the public
of certain cures. But the question before us is, is this regulation narrowly tailored? So that
is the question that you need to answer. Because if it is narrowly tailored, then you apply
the law. And if the speech is fraudulent, illegal, and misleading, then it is not protected
speech – you can punish the person who said the fraudulent 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, for commercial speech.

Page 16 of 22
 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 governmental 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 truth.

 So you must distinguish whether the type of speech that was placed in social media or
that cyber incident is within the realm of political speech or commercial speech. You have
to make that distinction.

 Now, transfer of appropriations under Article 6, Section 25, paragraph 5. With respect to
the transfer or appropriations, this involves Araullo v. Aquino and it is just more of a
guideline for the implementors of Republic Act No. 11469 (sic) involving the transfer of
appropriated funds (cross-border doctrine):

 The transfer of appropriated funds in order to be valid under Article 6, Section 25,
paragraph 5 (sic) must be made upon the concurrence of the following requisites:

(1.) First, (sic) there is a law authorizing the President, the President of the Senate,
the Speaker of the House, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Heads
of the Constitutional Commissions to transfer fund within their respective offices;

 So with regard to the President, only with respect to Executive Department;

with the President of the Senate, only with respect to the Senate; to the
Speaker of the House, only with respect to the House of Representatives;
the Chief Justice, within the Judiciary; and the Heads of the Constitutional
Commissions, within their respective Constitutional Commission.

(2.) Second, the funds to be transferred are savings generated from

appropriations for their respective offices; and

(3.) Third, the cause of the transfer is to augment an item in the General
Appropriations Law for their respective offices.

 Thus, cross-border transfers of the savings of the Executive to augment appropriations of

other offices outside the Executive is unconstitutional in Araullo v. Aquino with respect to
the Disbursement Acceleration Program. The office of the President cannot allocate funds
found within the Executive Department or within his office or within his purview, to that
of the Senate, or the House of Representatives, or to other Constitutional Commissions.
The transfer of savings within the Executive Department. So, cross-border transfers of
funds are unconstitutional. Cross-borders augmentations from savings are likewise
prohibited by the Constitution.

 By providing President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House (sic), the
Chief Justice, and Constitutional Commissions Heads the authority to augment any item
in the General Appropriations Act for their respective offices, check Article 6, Section 25,
Paragraph 5, it 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

Page 17 of 22
 augmentation of a deficient item or items. Thus, we call such transfers of funds cross-
border transfers or cross-augmentation.

 The phrase “respective offices” used in Article 6, Section 25 (of the Constitution),
paragraph 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 (Araullo v. Aquino).

 The next involves Republic Act No. 11332 which is the Public Health Emergency Act –
Mandatory Reporting of Notifiable Diseases and Health Events of Public Health Concern.

 Pursuant to the (state) policy under Article 2, Section 15 of the Constitution

involving the right to protect and promote the health of the people and instill
health consciousness among them, Republic Act No. 11332 was passed in 2019
expressly to address epidemic or pandemic emergencies.

 Declaration of policy, Article 2, Section 15 (of the Constitution) is the policy of the
state – the right to health of the people and to instill health consciousness among
them.

 Now, may I call your attention to the second portion (of Section 2 of Republic Act No.
11332):

“The state also recognizes disease surveillance and responses systems of the Department
of Health and its local counterparts as the first line of defense to epidemics and health
events of public health concern that pose risks to public health and security.”

 So the first line of defense are the health officials – the doctors and the
professionals – the public health authorities. They are the first line of defense
because they have the expertise, the special expertise to deal with these kinds of
public health emergencies, epidemics, and other health events of public health
concern.

 Now with respective to the objectives under Section 4 (of Republic Act No. 11332), may I
just point out the underscored I supplied for the first line of defense to emphasize the
importance of our health authorities and our doctors, nurses, and other health officials in
combating any type of epidemic or pandemic. So that is clear in the law, in its declaration
of policy.

 Now in Section 4 (of Republic Act No. 11332), may I invite your attention to these portions
of Section 4 (f) (3) and (4):

(3.) Quarantine and isolation; and

(4.) Rapid containment and implementation of measures for disease prevention

and control;

 …and well that is the basis for our general Community Quarantine and now the
Enhanced Community Quarantine.

Page 18 of 22
 And another objective (found in Section 4 (i) of Republic Act No. 11332): “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.”

 Under this Act, so the mandate involves rapid containment, quarantine and isolation,
disease prevention and control measures, as well as responses for events of public health
concern. 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.

 Under Section 7 (of Republic Act No. 11332), the President 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 non-
governmental agencies to respond to the threat, and clearly Presidential Proclamation
No. 922 affirms, or is an example of an operation of section 7.

 Section 9 (of Republic Act No. 11332) involves prohibited acts, so may I likewise call your
attention to a certain type of prohibited act. So let’s look at the disclosure of confidential
information. Now, there are penalties. Now let me just provide you with certain comments
on this law. Now you will notice a few days ago, there was this headline: “Government
requires COVID-19 patients to disclose personal information to enhance contact tracing”.
This does not affront to a person’s right to privacy especially under the Data Privacy Act.

 If you will notice, Secretary Karlo Nograles explained it very well. What
government will do is they will obtain a waiver, a consent, from these patients in
order to disclose information to enhance contact tracing. Contact tracing is
important because we have to know the (sic) root of the virus. So, if we can look
at the root cause, we can develop a cure for this. And so, Secretary Nograles
explained it well. It is not exactly a violation of the Data Privacy Law. There are
exemptions and I will explain to what these exception are.

 Section 6 (g) in relation to section 9 (a) and Section 9, second paragraph (of Republic Act
No. 11332). All personnel, we already got this awhile ago, they are first responders – they
are the first line of defense. But at the same time, there is a concomitant obligation to
respect fullest extent possible, the rights of people to liberty, bodily integrity, and privacy
while maintaining and preserving public health and security. Prohibited acts, unauthorized
disclosure of private and confidential information pertaining to a patient’s medical
condition or treatment. The disclosure of confidential information will not be considered a
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.

 Health and medical records are sacrosanct. They constitute sensitive personal
information of a person. Health and medical records are protected by the Data Privacy
Act, Republic Act No. 10173. Since they are sensitive personal information, they are
protected by the Data Privacy Law. Now, what can we do? Let’s read Republic Act No.
10173 in relation to Republic Act No. 11332. To ensure the compliance of the Data Privacy
Act, there are two remedies that may be pursued: one may obtain a lawful order of a court
of law, or one may obtain the consent of the patient, this was what Secretary Nograles
was saying, as the data subject to waive confidentiality on his or her (sic) health or medical

Page 19 of 22
 records. So there are two remedies here – the two exceptions that may exist – in order to
comply with both the Data Privacy Law and Republic Act No. 11332 on contact tracing.

 Now, please know that the first line of defense are our medical experts or our medical
authorities: doctors, nurses, and allied medical professionals. But please note that in order
for us to effectively address this global pandemic, to be able to strive for, well, in some
areas containment, in other areas, mitigation. It requires the grassroots network of our
local government units. So the success of this requires the cooperation of both the national
government and the local government units.

 So, in this case, Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code, especially section 105,
provides certain powers to the Secretary of Health.

 Now, in this case, Section 105 of the Local Government Code may be invoked to
provide direct national supervision and control by the Secretary of Health.

 Note that this is a special power granted to the Secretary of Health in cases of
epidemics, pestilence, and other widespread public health concerns and dangers.

 The Secretary of Health in this instance 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 all case not exceeding a cumulative
period of six months.

 With the concurrence of the government unit concerned, the period for such direct
national control and supervision may be further extended.

 So if you will notice, to be able to address this national emergency necessitating a civil
defense response, it requires the cooperation of the national government, the local
government units, and the first line defense in our different medical fields (sic).

 And so, it is not just one person or a group persons, it is all of us. In fact, we are
contributing through putting this information out to ensure that government is successful
in addressing this global pandemic at the earliest possible time.

 Oftentimes, when the Constitution is called upon, as I mentioned at the start of this
lecture, the Constitution is placed in a difficult situation, oftentimes, to provide a delicate
balance between liberty and security. But if you read the law in its totality, there is no
conflict between liberty and security. They are part of the greater whole to preserve the
State. The state which has four elements: people, territory, sovereignty, and government.
And in that sense, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution of Liberty, and the Constitution of
Government goes (sic) hand-in-hand in providing for a stronger state structure.

 Now, recap our lecture for today, I provided it in your notes. I provided it into
Constitutional provisions, Presidential Proclamations, statutes passed by Congress, as well
as Supreme Court jurisprudence.

 So, by way of summary, let’s look at – in order to address, in studying – the law dealing
with national emergencies due to public health concerns, we need to look at:
(Constitutional Provisions)

Page 20 of 22
 (a.) Article 2, Section 15;

(b.) Article 6, Section 23, paragraph 2;

(c.) Article 6, Section 25, paragraph 5;

(d.) Commander-in-chief clause in Article 7, Section 18;

(e.) Power of the state during national emergencies to temporarily take-over or direct the
operation of any privately-owned business under Article 12, Section 17;

(f.) The power of general supervision over local governments by the President under
Article 10, Section 4;

(g.) The Bill of Rights;

(h.) The grave abuse clause under Article 8, Section 1; as well as

(i.) Article 10, Sections 2, 3, and 5 involving local autonomy and decentralization of
administration of local government units.

 Now, for purposes of the COVID-19 crisis, you may look at: (Executive Issuances)

(a.) Presidential Proclamations No. 922; and

(b.) Presidential Proclamations No. 929

 With respect to statutes passed by Congress, the two that I mentioned:

(a.) Republic Act No. 11469;

(b.) Republic Act No. 11332;

(c.) The Local Government Code; as well as

(d.) The Data Privacy Act.

 As for cases, just to summarize:

(a.) Araneta v. Dinglasan;

(b.) Lansang v. Garcia;

(c.) IBP v. Zamora;

(d.) Lacson v. Perez;

(e.) Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary;

(f.) David v. Arroyo;

Page 21 of 22
 (g.) Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer; and

(h.) Araullo v. Aquino;

 Yes, there is a question here. The LGUs are imposing their own community quarantine and
enhanced community quarantine measures to an Executive Order. Is this valid? Is an
ordinance the appropriate action? Of course, ordinances always strengthens the legal
basis, but under the circumstances, what governs our situation involves the application of
Republic Act No. 11469 in relation to Republic Act No. 11332. What may perhaps be
apparent here is that local government units are enforcing the community quarantine and
enhanced community quarantine of Republic Act No. 11332. That in itself is the legal basis.
So the legal basis is Republic Act No. 11332 as well as its Implementing Rules and
Regulations.

 Now with respect to other types of incidents, ordinances are the proper vehicle to
effect specific types of measures in a community. But, essentially, Republic Act No.
11332 already covers it relation to Republic Act No. 11469.

 Now, of course when it comes to the penalties, the reason why ordinances should
be passed is that there are specific penalties imposed by the law provided by
Congress. But when it comes the implementation on the local level, there may be
some disparity from the penalties imposed by the national laws. Because, what the
local chief executives are imposing are in fact the national law which is passed by
Congress, as directed or as provided for by the President. Remember that it is the
President here who has a direct hand in imposing this quarantine. The Executive
Order is merely a manifestation of that. But, if the local sanggunians passed an
ordinance, it would be clearer with respect to certain violations, because there
may be violations that have imprisonment for one week, or overnight, there is no
uniform implementation of the penalty. An ordinance can address that to at least
make it uniform for that local government unit.

 Now, with respect to curfews, what is instructive here is SPARK v. Quezon City, Navotas,
and Manila. In SPARK it requires a local ordinance unless it is imposed on a national level
as part of the quarantine. But to add strength, to add clear legal basis from the standpoint
of the local government units, an ordinance providing for a limitation on the number of
hours out, in order to prevent the spread of the virus, may be possible under an ordinance.
The legal basis therein will be in fact Republic Act No. 11332 in relation to Republic Act No.
11469.

-TRANSCRIPT ENDS –

The online lecture may be accessed through this link:

https://www.facebook.com/103457951213625/videos/657769991455813/

Page 22 of 22