Can gov’t forcibly move out Taal residents from their homes?

Can the government insist on protecting citizens who do not agree to be protected? Can citizens validly refuse protection by the state invoking freedom and Bill of Rights? Does government need the permission of the people before it can exercise protective interventions on them?  Which will prevail: the police power of the state or the individual human rights of individual Filipinos?

I have organized a debate among my law students in two universities where I am teaching, on the proposition, Resolved That It Is Legal For Government To Remove Residents Forcible From Their Homes In Cases Of Life-Threatening Disasters and Calamities. I also organized another debate on the Proposition, Resolved That Government Can Legally Evacuate Two Million OFWs From the Middle East In The Face of An Imminent Threat Of War. It is indeed a very exciting topic to tackle for, today, in Batangas, hundreds of residents refused to leave their homes and their farm animals and military officials have threatened to forcibly eject them from their own homes and supposedly bring them to safety.

There also thousands of OFWs in Kuwait, and neighboring states of Qatar, UAE, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, and even in Iraq and Iran itself and in Libya, who all refuse to be repatriated. They are taking the risks and do not need the help of the Philippine government. They had been through many wars, like the former invasion of Kuwait, the Iran-Iraq wars, the troubles in Libya and Syria, and the recurrent shooting battles between Israel and Palestine. The Filipino migrant workers are saying that if they come home, they have no source of livelihood. Their families will starve and their children cannot go to college anymore. The government insists that they come home.

The President is sending two big ships escorted by helicopters and manned by two battalions of soldiers, one from the army and the other from the marines. But if the OFWs do not want to come, can they really be forcibly taken? The positive side of the debate is invoking the inherent and sovereign power of the state called police power. The negative side is standing firmly on the platform of human rights. The negative side says that the government is just a creation of the people. The government cannot impose its will on the citizens because in our democratic system, sovereignty resides on the people and all authority emanate from them.

The state, however, would insist that it is the duty of the government to protect the people, and this government would not renege on such a constitutional duty. The positive side insists that individual human rights cannot prevail over the sovereign power of the state. These two debates then should be decided on three criteria: first Necessity, second, beneficiality, and third, practicality. In other words, the positive side should prove that it is necessary to forcibly evacuate Filipinos both from Taal and from the Middle East. It must also prove that forcible ejection is beneficial to the people, and lastly, that to forcibly evacuate affected Filipinos is practicable.

I have my own view on these two propositions but for lack of space, I shall express them in my next columns. For the moment, I am provoking all my readers to debate on these two issues, and to argue with passion and convictions on the collision between the powers of the state and government on the one hand, and the rights of individual citizens, on the other. To which side do you belong?