Rights of presidents, paupers protected under Constitution – SC justices

Several justices on Thursday emphasized the importance of respecting and protecting a person's constitutional rights whether she is a former President of the country or just an impoverished street vendor.   “It can be GMA [Gloria Macapagal Arroyo], Juan de la Cruz or it can be Mang Pandoy... I don’t know if you are still familiar with Mang Pandoy,” Corona started on the second round of the oral arguments to defend the issuance of a watch list orders (WLOs) against Mrs. Arroyo and her husband, former First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo.   Mang Pandoy, Felipe Natanio in real life, was used in the early 1990s by then newly elected President Fidel Ramos as the “face of the poor” for his administration’s anti-poverty campaign.   “[But] we are a court of law and that’s our job here under the Constitution, to protect individual rights of citizens,” Corona said, as he addressed Solicitor General Jose Anselmo Cadiz, who took his turn at the rostrum facing the high bench in the session hall along Padre Faura Street in Manila.   The Arroyo couple’s camp has been insisting the WLOs violated the couple's right to travel as protected under the 1987 Philippine Constitution.   The Chief Justice pointed out that the high court’s mandate to protect these rights should apply at all times to everyone.   “Imagine six or seven years from now, if a person is being hounded by their political enemies with the same vigor as you have, don’t you think it would be incumbent to this Court to give their constitutional right the same importance we are giving them today,” he said.   The chief justice, one of 12 justices appointed by Arroyo to the high court, went even further and placed the scenario four decades from now.   “In 40 years, when we have all been gone from the face of the Earth, when all the passion and emotions of today will have been gone... and all that's left to see are the facts as they occur, what do you think they ought to see about this court... that society guided individual rights of people,” he said.   Police power vs. rights to remain silent, to travel   For his part, Justice Roberto Abad said there was never a case when a procedure was rendered unsuccessful in resolving a preliminary investigation just because the respondents were absent.   “It [investigating team] can still investigate crimes and file the appropriate charges,” he said.   Abad further said a public prosecutor or even a judge cannot compel a respondent to testify during preliminary investigation.   “He or she has the constitutional right, an absolute right to silence,” Abad said.   Cadiz responded: “But how can we prosecute if a person is not in the country anymore. He or she can’t even be arraigned.”   Just the same, Abad insisted: “There’s nothing in the law that stops you from traveling.”   Cadiz insisted the Justice Department has the authority to “practice police power of the state,” adding it was delegated anyway by the government’s legislative branch.   "I cannot comprehend now that it is being applied to [Mrs. Arroyo], we say we cannot apply that to her... but before more than 6,000 have been issued," said Cadiz.   But Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro stopped the solicitor general from going further with his argument: “Please, do not appeal to emotions and extralegal arguments... We are talking about fine points of the law here," said De Castro. — MRT/VS/KG, GMA News