Panelo clarifies statement. The President was just pointing out the restrictive clauses. There is no intention behind his arguments.

Panelo, Chief legal Counsel speaks out.

PIcs courtesy Mb.com.ph and manila.coconuts.co

PIcs courtesy Mb.com.ph and manila.coconuts.co

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The statement of the President regarding martial law drew a strong reaction from the Vice President Leni Robredo. But, his Chief legal counsel is not worried or impressed.
He attributed the reaction of the Vice President to misplaced fear.
As a matter of fact, he did explain why he said do. As a matter of fact, he emphasized, that the provisions for martial law had been the subject of debate.
However, the Vice President seems to have misunderstood the context of his arguments.
On the other hand, the President was expressing his concern about some provisions in the 1987 constitution.
Secretary Salvador Panelo, the Chief Presidential legal counsel, told the assembled reporters in Malacañang. Robredo had gone so far as to say that he challenged the same constitution that he had sworn to protect.
He intended to point out the constraints that would prevent the President to implement martial law, if it became indispensible. The clause making a review mandatory might be an impediment in case of any emergent requirement.
Explanation
There might be situations that the President did not have the time to convince the Congress or the judiciary. Even if the country’s interest required it, the judiciary or the congress might not be inclined to agree.
The President tried to impress the members that the restrictive clauses may hamper any President who wanted to implement it. This did not necessarily mean that he wanted to implement Martial law himself.
Neither did the President mean to speak about himself nor did he have any such desire, asserted Panelo. Who knows this restrictive clause might prevent favorable events in future? Such restrictions may be detrimental to public interest in case of severe law and order situations should they be warranted.
Therefore, it appears that the president may not be able to deliver if a real crisis develops. Consequently he may fail to protect and serve the people because of this provision.
That is the context that bothered the President, not his will to impose martial law and rule his countrymen.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Umrao singh
Umraoz.wordpress.com
Saturday, December 24, 2016
Written for: Lars-Magnus Carlsson
www.thephilippinepride.com

Comments

comments