[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’Martial law extension’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=’30’ subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’18’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=” av-medium-font-size-title=” av-small-font-size-title=” av-mini-font-size-title=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
BY AYIN DREAM D. APLASCA
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
February 10, 2018
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=’18’ font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
EVERY morning I check my social media accounts for live updates on Philippine news. One issue that greeted me the other morning was about the martial law extension.
Former chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) Etta Rosales has plans of filing a motion for reconsideration regarding the said martial law extension. According to her, the “Charter’s provisions on martial law are clearly intended for actual cases of invasion and rebellion where public safety requires such extraordinary measures – none of which exists.”
It is to be noted that the 1987 Philippine Constitution allows martial law and its extension. The law expressly provides under Section 18, Article VII that the President, as commander-in-chief, may in case of invasion or rebellion, which the public safety requires it, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the country under martial law.
Of course, the law provides that martial law does not and cannot override both the judiciary and legislative branches of the government.
In a previous column, I mentioned three constitutional safeguards: (1) the continuing operation of the Constitution; (2) military authority not supplanting Congress or Judiciary; and (3) the military courts not acquiring jurisdiction over civilians, where civilian courts are functioning.
Any act contrary to these may be held liable and accountable to be determined in a separate action.
There was no question in granting martial law in Mindanao because of what happened in Marawi City. The issue now is whether or not the continuance or extension is constitutional.
Again, the Constitution provides that Congress may extend such proclamation or suspension for a period determined by it, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
December last year, Congress approved President Rodrigo Duterte’s request to extend martial law in Mindanao for another year to give security forces time to resolve security threats. The Supreme Court (SC) voted to uphold the initial declaration with finality. And just this January, the SC en banc held oral arguments on the one-year extension of martial law in Mindanao.
Now, the question is: Is re-extension of Martial Law constitutional? Yes.
Additionally under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, the SC may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
As the interpreter of the highest law of the land, the SC ruled that the “Constitution is silent on how many times Congress may extend a proclamation if martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It also does not fix a period for the duration of any extension of a proclamation or suspension but expressly leaves the matter to Congress – for a period to be determined by Congress.”
Obviously, the Constitution does not provide a limit to how many times martial law can be extended. It is discretionary to the Congress to determine the period.
The SC also added that had the “Constitutional Commission intended to limit any extension to 60 days, it would have been expressly stated and would not have been left to Congress.”
Whether aggrieved or not, the SC had factual bases in rendering such decision because the rebellion referred here was spawned by the Marawi incident. Public safety should be protected because greater injury or rebellion might happen again.
Come to think of it, the terrorist activities did not end when the government won the war in Marawi City. As reported by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the terrorists are actively training recruits and may intensify the situation.
Everything discussed was all on point. And to be honest, one of the reasons why people are fussing about this is the fear that the Philippines will experience again a martial law like that under the Marcos presidency.
I believe people should stop the paranoia on the martial law itself and focus more on how to fight terrorism. Let us not stress ourselves with the past and even with the future. What we need now is unity as well as trust and confidence with the rule of law.
***
(Atty. Ayin Dream D. Aplasca practices her profession in Iloilo City. She may be reached thru ayindream.aplasca@gmail.com/PN)
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
