State of Emergency

MANILA, Philippines — Malacañang Thursday scoffed at former Ambassador Albert del Rosario’s claim that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had considered suspending the writ of habeas corpus in 2005 and tried to seek US approval for such a move.

Undersecretary Anthony Golez said then Speaker Jose de Venecia was not authorized to discuss the matter with Del Rosario, contrary to the claim of the then ambassador to the United States.

“The President did not authorize the former Speaker, and we find this hearsay. What he simply knows is that JDV (De Venecia) went to Washington purportedly to convince the US authorities to [agree to the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus],” Golez told reporters at a briefing.

And since Del Rosario had “no personal knowledge” of the matter, “I don’t know why we would take the word of Ambassador Del Rosario as gospel truth,” Golez said.

In an article Thursday in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Del Rosario, who was the Philippine envoy to the United States from 2001 to 2006, wrote that Ms Arroyo was “capable of placing our democracy at great risk in pursuit of [her administration’s] survival.”

He said that at the height of the “Hello Garci” election fraud scandal in mid-2005, De Venecia traveled to Washington and asked him if the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus could be defended with the US government.

De Venecia said the move would target the political opposition, Del Rosario wrote. He said he rejected the idea, saying it was “not defensible.”

Under a suspended writ of habeas corpus, a person can be arrested and detained without charges.

Del Rosario also said he later reported what had transpired to Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo, “who looked favorably on our having taken a clear and firm position.”

Not Arroyo representative

But Golez, a deputy spokesperson of Ms Arroyo, maintained that De Venecia had “not represented the President at any given time.”

De Venecia was a staunch supporter of Ms Arroyo until he was ousted as Speaker in February 2008, in the wake of his son’s exposé on the government’s controversial $329-million National Broadband Network deal with China’s ZTE Corp.

Also commenting on Del Rosario’s account, Gabriel Claudio, Ms Arroyo’s political adviser, said Romulo’s position reflected the administration’s position more than De Venecia’s.

“If the account is accurate, let’s take it from the position of Secretary Romulo, which was one of incredulity,” Claudio said on the phone. “That’s a more accurate representation of the position of the executive branch.”

Golez also dismissed Del Rosario’s claim that the US government sent Ambassador John Negroponte to Manila to dissuade Ms Arroyo from declaring a state of emergency but that she went ahead with it in February 2006.

“Much can be speculated on the trip of former Ambassador Negroponte, but the most important thing here is, it’s the duty of the President to protect and preserve our Constitution, and [it] has given [her] enough powers to protect it and protect [the] citizens—and that’s what the President did,” Golez said.

“To protect our Constitution and the country, the President declared a state of emergency,” he said.

‘Nothing to douse’

As for US think tank Global Source’s observation that the late former President Corazon Aquino virtually buried any attempt by the Arroyo administration to declare martial law or emergency rule, Golez said: “There’s no martial law scenario.”

In an Aug. 11 report titled “The Road Gets Easier,” the think tank said the turnout of a massive crowd at the Aug. 5 funeral of Aquino had doused such scenarios as martial law or emergency rule.

But Claudio said: “In the first place there’s nothing to douse. I am not aware of such a scenario having been contemplated at all.”

‘Brazen’

At the Senate, outrage greeted Del Rosario’s account.

Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. and fellow opposition Senators Alan Peter Cayetano, Francis Pangilinan and Francis Escudero separately denounced the administration’s “brazen” way to stay in power when it was under siege by fallout from the “Hello Garci” scandal.

The senators, all lawyers, called on the public not to let its guard down and declared that the Senate would continue to oppose any tendency to slide back into emergency rule.

“The problem is [Ms Arroyo’s] fear of facing charges and going to jail, taken together with the brazenness in doing anything to get power and stay in power,” Cayetano said in a phone interview.

Cayetano, who, as congressman, was among those who pushed Ms Arroyo’s impeachment in 2005 and 2006, said many had claimed that some sort of emergency rule was the administration’s “last card.”

He called on the public to be vigilant, saying the President “showed she is willing to go that far in the past.” He cited the arrests of militant party-list lawmakers, the raid on the Tribune newspaper and the issuance of Executive Order No. 464.

EO 464 prohibits government officials from attending congressional inquiries without the President’s prior consent.

“Even her close allies like former Speaker Jose de Venecia and Defense Secretary Avelino Cruz have claimed there is such a plan [for emergency rule],” Cayetano said.

Credible witnesses

Escudero, who twice led impeachment drives against Ms Arroyo as House minority leader, said “the tendency is clear, given her use of and reliance on the [military], how she quelled ‘Edsa III,’ issued EO 464, and appointed retired military officers as close advisers.”

“This is a dangerous tendency that we should stop at all cost given that it’s not to ensure public safety but, rather, the personal security [of the First Family],” Escudero said.

Pimentel said Del Rosario was the latest in a long list of credible witnesses attesting that Ms Arroyo had explored the imposition of martial law in 2005.

“Her allies like JDV (de Venecia) was one of the closest to her. It can be relied upon as an indication of the kind of doubletalk that the administration is always engaged in,” Pimentel said.

“I think that the Filipino people are wary of the pronouncements of the President, whether these are meant to enhance the liberties of the people or to promote their own agenda,” he said.

Pangilinan said he was not surprised at Del Rosario’s disclosure.

“Malacañang’s propensity to violate the Constitution is no secret. We should ensure that we do not let our guard down. The people’s eternal vigilance is the only safeguard against dictatorship and tyranny,” Pangilinan said.