FOR: THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES

FROM: EDWIN V. DE NICOLAS

DATE: 10 OCTOBER 2011
RE: DECLARATION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY
QUESTION PRESENTED
Should a State of Emergency be declared in the National Capital Region, Regions 1, 2, 3 and 4
due to the devastation from super typhoons which has caused rising flood waters in these
areas?
BRIEF ANSWER
Yes, the President should declare a State of Emergency in affected regions in order to prevent
or suppress lawless violence and to avert great loss of human lives and mass destruction of
property.
FACTS
The National Capital Region, Regions 1, 2, 3 and 4 were devastated by super typhoons that hit
these areas. The flood waters have continued to rise. Due to the frequency of typhoons in the
current year, these flood waters have not subsided, and are expected to last weeks, even
months, according to the Philippine weather agency, PAGASA. Homes have been submerged in
these floods, and millions have been rendered homeless. There is a food shortage in these
affected areas, and power outages have become frequent. Diseases such as cholera, dengue
fever and malaria have been prevalent in these areas. Criminality has also been on the rise in
the affected areas. Moreover, several typhoons are still expected to hit the country until the
end of the year.
DISCUSSION
The World Health Organization (WHO) has defined emergency as a state in which normal
procedures are suspended and extra-ordinary measures are taken in order to avert the impact
of a hazard on the community. Authorities should be prepared to effectively respond to an
emergency. If not properly managed, some emergencies will become disasters.
It further defined disaster as an occurrence where normal conditions of existence are
disrupted and the level of suffering exceeds the capacity of the hazard-affected community to
respond to it.
Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution states that The President shall be the
Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary,
he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion.XXX
Fr, Joaquin Bernas, S.J. has cited in David v. Ermita (G.R. No. 171409, May 3, 2009) which
involved a declaration of a state of emergency, the Supreme Court has clarified that when the
President declares a state of emergency or a state of rebellion her action is merely a description
of the situation as she sees it but it does not give her new powers.
The Supreme Court in Ampatuan, et. Al v. Puno (G.R. No. 190259, June 7, 2011) dismisses the
petition against Presidential Proclamation 1946 stating that The President did not proclaim a
national emergency, only a state of emergency in the three places mentioned. And she did not
act pursuant to any law enacted by Congress that authorized her to exercise extraordinary
powers. The calling out of the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence in such
places is a power that the Constitution directly vests in the President. She did not need a
congressional authority to exercise the same.
CONCLUSION
The immense damage brought by the typhoons and the imminence of lawlessness in the
affected areas were too grave to be ignored by the President and he has to act immediately to
prevent loss of lives, damage to properties and curtail violence and anarchy in the affected
regions. The declaration of a State of Emergency is justifiable at this moment to stabilize the
situation by calling out the police and the armed forces to curb criminality and lawlessness and
ensure that government agencies that has the responsibility to provide relief and rehabilitation
will act immediately.