MANILA, Philippines -- By the time this piece comes out in print, everything that can be said about the Manila Peninsula event, wise or unwise, will perhaps already have been said. Nevertheless let me try my hand at sorting out some of the aspects of it.

First of all, why did Senator Trillanes and his crew do it? A criminal act was committed, but I will leave the labeling of the offense to the government’s army of lawyers. The obvious answer to my question, articulated by both Trillanes and Gen. Daniel Lim, was that their objective was to bring the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo down. Immediately or in the distant future?

If immediate success was the objective, were they dreaming of a repeat of Edsa I, which ousted President Marcos, or of the 2001 withdrawals of military support which terminated President Estrada’s presidency? Both Lim and Trillanes are trained military officers and it is hard to imagine that they anticipated immediate success. I shall say nothing of the Catholic bishops who joined them.

Long-term investment

I can, however, see this failed eruption as a long term investment for the future. The public reaction, while indicating disagreement with the means used by Trillanes and Lim, shows a widespread desire for an end to corruption that has weighed down the current administration. Official rhetoric does not convince the public that the current administration is doing enough to make the needed correction. Platitudes do not achieve reform. Yesterday’s adventure might yet bear fruit.

What of the police reaction to the situation? It was clear from the speed with which Manila Peninsula was cleared that police authorities have learned that protracted negotiations can only do more damage. They decided to cut quickly. But did they cut clean?

Constitutional shortcuts

Recent Supreme Court cases have made it very clear that an emergency situation, even if it is declared by the President (and one was not declared this time) does not give more powers to the executive arm than what it has in normal situations. It does not authorize constitutional shortcuts. In this connection we must look at two actions taken by government: the arrest of media practitioners and the imposition of curfew.

An arrest in general terms is a deprivation of liberty for the purpose of making a person answer for an offense. One can quibble about words and call what was done to media practitioners an “invitation for processing.” Incidentally, jurisprudence says that one brought to a police station by invitation is already covered by the constitutional protections for persons under custodial investigation. Besides, an invitation may be declined. This was not the case with the media men and women. They were not only herded into vans against their wishes but were even manacled while being brought to Bicutan. In short, they were ignominiously arrested.

No warrant of arrest

The basic rule is that no person may be deprived of liberty without due process of law. Due process requires that no person may be arrested without a warrant of arrest issued by a judge except in those instances where warrantless arrests are constitutionally allowed. I am assuming that there was no warrant for the arrest of the media people. Was this a case of a justifiable warrantless arrest?

What immediately comes to my mind is the exception covering the arrest of persons caught in flagrante delicto -- that is, caught in the act of committing a crime. What crime were the media people committing? The police officers themselves did not know and so they were brought to the police camp in Bicutan to verify whether they were committing a crime. In other words, shoot first; ask questions later!

Another thing which comes to my mind is what is called in jurisprudence a “stop and frisk situation.” An experienced police officer is allowed to stop and frisk a person for the purpose if verifying of a person acting in a suspicious manner is in possession of a dangerous weapon. But this obviously was not the case.

Error corrected

I will say nothing about freedom of expression because I happen to believe that media people do not have more freedom of expression than ordinary persons. They are more prone to having their right violated but they do not have a superior freedom of expression. But we should look into what the police did with their equipment and other materials, if anything at all.

The President herself must have seen the error of the situation and tried damage control by giving the instruction that the processing must be expedited. And it was. I hope a lesson was learned.

Curfew

Let me also say something about the imposition of curfew.

Basically curfew is a limitation on freedom of movement. It is interesting to note that the 1987 Bill of Rights tightened the protection on the freedom of movement. It now says “Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.” If you take out the phrase “as may be provided by law,” what is left is the discretionary power to limit travel on the basis of “national security, public safety, or public health.” This was the old provision. The 1986 Constitutional Commission added the phrase “as may be provided by law” in order to limit executive discretion by requiring that the limitation be done in accordance with an existing law whether general or specific. Thus, for instance, there is a law allowing control of exit from the country under certain circumstances.

I am not sure if there is a law covering the imposition of curfew. At any rate, the problem of last night’s curfew has become mooted by the ticking of the clock.