[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=’ABOVE THE LAW
BY AYIN DREAM D. APLASCA ‘ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”][/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
The guarantee
I BUMPED into a friend last weekend. We were excited to know what’s up and what’s new. We did a lot of catching up and, of course, there’s the usual argumentation and debate moment. We talked about law school, political reforms, and international affairs.
But one thing we did was to discuss the recent Supreme Court (SC) decision which upheld President Duterte’s Proclamation No. 216. Both of us have downloaded the 82-page Supreme Court landmark decision. It was worth reading.
At first, we were so engrossed in discussing the “noble” in the case – positive aftermaths and negative results. At the end of the day, we came to the core of the case which is the anticipated event of an extension of martial law in Mindanao. And this anticipated event just happened last weekend.
I think a lot of people asked: What guarantee do we have that protects against abuse will be in effect? Let me share what we have discussed.
In the case of Lagman vs. Medialdea, we thought that the SC will probably approve the extension of martial law. The Highest Court of the land found factual basis for the issuance of Proclamation No. 216. Thus, reading from the tone of the SC decision, it will positively sustain the extension of martial law.
We cannot deny the fact that history will cause apprehension among the people. However, the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides assurance against unjustified use of extraordinary power.
The Constitution provides in Section 18, Article VII a remedy. It provides for both congressional and judicial reviews. The former is automatic and the latter must be initiated by any citizen. Congress has the power of revocation which the President cannot set aside. The congressional review must take place before judicial review. It is a practice to exhaust all available and adequate remedies before resort to Court review.
However, it must be stressed that the Court may exercise its judicial power prior to the congressional review. It may make independent assessment as to the factual basis of the facts upon which the President relied on.
Considering the concurring opinion of Justice Jose C. Mendoza, he mentioned the Memorandum issued by the Department of National Defense that cited the Constitutional safeguards against martial law, particularly: (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.
As we can see, the Constitution allows martial law as the situation may require. In the exercise of their constitutional duties, we can be sure that the Congress and the SC will see to it that the restrictions are complied with.
Hopefully, the Philippines will not be placed again under the same martial law 45 years ago. Well, only time can tell.
(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]
