The militant Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) along with its allied organizations like the PAMALAKAYA, Amihan, SENTRA and NNARA-Youth is set to contest the constitutionality of Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita yesterday which will apply the so-called rule of calibrated preemptive response in lieu of maximum tolerance. 

According to Ka Willy Marbella, internal deputy secretary general of KMP, “this is just a euphemism for violent dispersals and police brutality. Ironically, Ermita also issued it on the 33rd anniversary of the declaration of martial rule; actually, we are seeing that Gloria is also following the pattern that Marcos used to propagate himself in power,”

“Now Gloria is to unleash all out violence against the critics of the regime, maybe tomorrow she will suspend the writ of habeas corpus and maybe next week she may order the assassination of her critics. These are all geared to prolong her stay in Malacanang and are also all tried and tested Marcos tactics,” added the peasant leader

Meanwhile the legal institution Sentro Para Sa Tunay na Repormang Agraryo Foundation and the lawyers group Young Lawyers League for Civil Liberties called the measure a “concrete prelude and manifestation of the existence of an undeclared martial rule,” Atty. Jobert Pahilga, Executive Trustee of SENTRA and convenor of the YLL said, “The said policy, obliterating the maximum tolerance rule is unconstitutional and invalid.  It transgresses and violates the constitutional rights and freedoms of expression and assembly.”

“Whether such policy exists or it is just another scare tactic by Malacanang and Sec. Ermita to discourage people from expressing their grievances to the government in the forms of mass actions and assemblies, we will challenge and question the validity of such policy in the courts. “
SENTRA and the YLL stated that the there are already various jurisprudence of similar nature decided upon by the Supreme Court that would surely invalidate the policy because of its unconstitutionality.

The two groups cited the decision in the case of Reyes v Bagatsing (G.R. No. L-65366.  November 9, 1983), reiterating the earlier doctrine in Primicias vs. Fugoso (80 Phil. 71) that "the right to freedom of speech and to peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances are fundamental personal rights of the people recognized and guaranteed by the constitutions of democratic countries."

Pahilga likewise reiterated that in that landmark case, which was decided upon during the Marcos dictatorship, it was held that there must be no prior restraint and no subsequent liability imposed on the communication of views unless there be a "clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent." 

“The danger the SC speaks of must be clear and imminent.  Where is that danger now? No such danger exists because what the policy and Malacanang are trying to protect is the continued existence of the Macapagal-Arroyo administration.” Pahilga added. # # #

KMP - 22 September 2005