Maybe you should try a different brand of deodorant, Mr. “justice league”.

Any substance in that assertion of yours is definitely applicable to yourself.

i can understand now why realitycheck has said goobbye to you earlier in this thread, and i should say goodbye to you too.

Well, I did have basis for my statements to RealityCheck and I did have basis for my statements to you.

So no one should be surprised that both of you share the same reaction.

But I respect your decision and I bid you goodbye.

i can understand now why realitycheck has said goobbye to you earlier in this thread, and i should say goodbye to you too. :)

BTW, I did not rectify myself.

First you said “order for the President” and “Order to the President” then you said “will be in effect an order to the President”.

There you said it yourself. ……………… to suppress rebellion emanates from her of “martial law/suspension of the writ.

No I did not.

I would say that it would be based on the calling out power. The Constitution and the SC decision are already above to support my claim.

But since your claim is that they still emanate from “martial law/suspension of the writ” even though “martial law/suspension of the writ” have been ruled unconstitutional/unjustified/invalid/etc….. ; I suggest you tell why they still emanate from it.

You should ask the Cha-Cha proponents about that.

I’ve been asking similar questions to that for more than 3 years and they’ve always remained silent.

… a corrupt executive which I can boot out of office during election …

It took more than 10 years before Pres. Marcos let himself be subjected to an election after declaring Martial law. And if he is to be believed, he didn’t lose his last election either so he was never booted out of office via an election.

And if you are going to go the extra legal measure route; what is stopping you from doing likewise with a “despotic court”?

A life sentence imposed on a convict does not mean that he has to stay in jail until he dies. My remembrance of a life sentence is only up to 40 years.

If you are referring to reclusion perpetua; its 30 years.

There you said it yourself. The authority of the President to order the military to enforce laws pertinent to its duty to suppress violence, is supreme and despite the pronouncement of the President of his “acts of declaring martial law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus” as being “unconstitutional” the Court is powerless to order the President to stop her from proceeding from what he thinks his authority to order the to suppress rebellion emanates from her of “martial law/suspension of the writ.

And I never hinted that the President is disempowered to order the troops to quell the rebellion/insurrection by virtue of the “unconstitutional” dicta of the court about his determination that such situation exists. I am in favor of a strong President as against a strong “despotic court”.

BTW, I did not rectify myself. The President can be sued through her alter egos. The suit against the alter egos is actually a suit against the sitting President because he is bound by the Court order through his alter egos.

“If this judicial review is not as sacrosanct as you imply it to be, why are pro Chacha proponents bothering to reverse it back to pre- Martial law- Martial law days”. Justice League.

You should ask the Cha-Cha proponents about that. But from my point of view, Cha-Cha is just trying to reallocate powers to the institutions that rightfully should exercise the power. Least you misinterpret my position, I wish to bring up my bias that between a corrupt executive which I can boot out of office during election and a corrupt court whose members are life-tenured, I would choose a corrupt and powerful Executive.

The literary hyperbole is best illustrated in this analogy. A life sentence imposed on a convict does not mean that he has to stay in jail until he dies. My remembrance of a life sentence is only up to 40 years.

BTW, you asked why the heck should I ask if a sitting President be a respondent in suit before the SC. He/She is under the principle of command reponsibility. The suit against her alter-egos, Secretary of Defense/Executive Secretary is a suit against the President by legal fiction. If you order her alter egos to perform an act, it is in effect an order to the President.

I didn’t pursue the matter after you rectified your statements already.

you are really funny. discussion was centered on the ability of the SC to review the determination of the executive that an emergency situation arises, and therefore he declares martial law/suspends the writ of habeas corpus and pursuant to such declaration sends out the troops to quell the rebellion/insurrection.
Court said that there was no basis for the invocation the emergency powers because there was no “actual rebellion/subversion”. President believes otherwise and so he continues to order troops mobilization because according to you he is authorized anyway to send out troops to quell rebellion/insurrection under his other “emergency powers”.

Let us say the President declares Martial Law in Luzon and all that can be shown is rebellion/insurrection in parts of 1 region.

The SC says there is no rebellion/insurrection in Luzon to justify a declaration of Martial law in Luzon. But the President still believes that he/she needs to send out the Armed Forces to quell the rebellion/insurrection.

Obviously you will say that he/she can’t. I suggest you tell why?

If the President can act the way he wants because he is allowed to do that under his oher powers, what is all this “judicial review” for?.

I disagree.

I believe there is graduation of the powers of the President for dealing with such issues.

I believe that power of suspension of writ of habeas corpus and Martial Law provides a greater power for the President than just the calling out power.

Obviously you believe otherwise; I suggest you tell why.

Or as I posited earlier, “what is so sacrosant about this judicial review”

In the decision on PP1017 (which upheld again the calling out power of the President), the SC said that:

- It must be stressed that “an unconstitutional act is not a law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protection; it is in legal contemplation, inoperative.”

- This Court rules that the assailed PP 1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants President Arroyo the authority to promulgate “decrees.”

-As this Court stated earlier, President Arroyo has no authority to enact decrees. It follows that these decrees are void and, therefore, cannot be enforced. With respect to “laws,” she cannot call the military to enforce or implement certain laws, such as customs laws, laws governing family and property relations, laws on obligations and contracts and the like. She can only order the military, under PP 1017, to enforce laws pertinent to its duty to suppress lawless violence.

- Following our interpretation of Section 17, Article XII, invoked by President Arroyo in issuing PP 1017, this Court rules that such Proclamation does not authorize her during the emergency to temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest without authority from Congress.

-However, PP 1017’s extraneous provisions giving the President express or implied power (1) to issue decrees; (2) to direct the AFP to enforce obedience to all laws even those not related to lawless violence as well as decrees promulgated by the President; and (3) to impose standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press, are ultra vires and unconstitutional. The Court also rules that under Section 17, Article XII of the Constitution, the President, in the absence of a legislation, cannot take over privately-owned public utility and private business affected with public interest.

-The warrantless arrest of Randolf S. David and Ronald Llamas; the dispersal and warrantless arrest of the KMU and NAFLU-KMU members during their rallies, in the absence of proof that these petitioners were committing acts constituting lawless violence, invasion or rebellion and violating BP 880; the imposition of standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press, as well as the warrantless search of the Tribune offices and whimsical seizure of its articles for publication and other materials, are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

If this judicial review is not as sacrosanct as you imply it to be, why are pro Chacha proponents bothering to reverse it back to pre- Martial law- Martial law days?

You do not owe me an apology. Compared to others, you are more civil.

You are absolutely correct, my post to you was off topic, and does not respect the basic principle of letting people speak as they see fit. I am just noodling, and may try a separate blog myself to deal with the subject “blogging etiquette and winning the point”.

For myself, I see the dialogue you and justice league are having as one of the most germane issues that is possible to discuss today, being carried out by two bright people who are coming at the issue from their own perspectives. I tend to think the ideal blog issue would be concluded when two bright people hash at an issue striving to somehow arrive at an agreement, rather than beat the opponent into submission. This is difficult to begin with, and is made more difficult if the conversation deteriorates into personal slurs. Also, either or both parties may have to bend a little, something most of us find difficult.

[To Justice League, I understand on all points. Cheers back.]

[To Bencard, I have no expectation of getting you to behave kindly toward others.]

Anyway, keep up the good work; I’m learning a lot; and pardon the diversion.

Joe

not all people are doormats, joe. you don’t expect people to treat assailants with courtesy and decorum, do you? i don’t know about the others but as far as i’m concerned, anyone who starts with me can expect that i will try to finish it with all the means at my disposal.