[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=’BENEATH & BEYOND | Martial law’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY SONIA D. DAQUILA
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
Saturday, May 27, 2017
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
PLACING the entire Mindanao under martial law spawned varied reactions and raised many questions.
How does President Duterte’s declaration of martial law differ from the Marcos martial law? Is the declaration legal or appropriate? What are the implications of this event?
The act of declaring martial law in the entire Mindanao is founded on the Philippine Constitution, specifically under Article 7, Section 13 of 1987. Marcos likewise cited the Philippine Constitution as his basis, complemented by his manipulation and orchestration of deadly games inclusive of encounters between the government forces and the New People’s Army (NPA), “salvage”, disappearances, tortures and gross violation of human rights to perpetuate himself and his family in power for almost 20 years.
At the start, dictator Marcos was well-meaning as shown in his book, Notes to the New Society. What he was dreaming of was CHANGE to create a new society. Consequently, the 1973 Constitution (crafted during his regime) allowed him to arrogate powers of the three branches of government.
Systematically, he first dismantled the Senate and the House of Representatives and replaced them with the Batasang Pambansa which was his rubber stamp, and the Judicial Branch justices and judges appointed by him while the Committee on Appointments was abolished. Accordingly, the Judiciary had proven itself inutile.
Indeed, Lord Acton was right when he said, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Marcos has remained as the “unlamented” and detestable dictator of the country despite his being buried in a cemetery for heroes.
President Duterte’s declaration of martial law on the other hand, is founded on the 1987 Philippine Constitution where he has the emergency power as the commander-in-chief of all Armed Forces of the Philippines to call the AFP to suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion and to place any part of the Philippines or of the entire country under martial law or to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
Framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution had witnessed how power-hungry President Marcos transformed democracy to autocracy through the Constitution tailored for his dictatorial government, by his issuances of executive orders, general orders, letters of instruction, and terroristic acts. In his regime, Marcos alone could determine when was a situation appropriate for declaration or lifting martial law.
Thus, built-in mechanisms are provided in the 1987 Constitution to check the President’s emergency power:
1. placing the entire Philippine islands or any part thereof under martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is limited to SIXTY (60) days only, and the President has to report to the Legislative Branch (the House of Representatives and the Senate) personally or in writing report on martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas Corpus WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT (48) hours after such declaration;
2. The Legislative Branch may revoke or extend such proclamation or suspension by a majority vote of all of the two houses voting jointly. The REVOCATION shall not be set aside by the President;
3. Any citizen may file a complaint to the Supreme Court to review the sufficiency of facts pre-requisites of such declaration or suspension, and has to promulgate its decision within 30 days from filing of complaint;
4. State of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (underscoring mine). The suspension of the writ applies only to those judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent or directly connected with invasion;
5. Even during the suspension of the writ, the people arrested or detained without judicial complaint filed against them should be released within three days; and
6. The Legislative Branch may convene on their own without the need of the president calling the same.
What is happening now is a litmus test of the Duterte’s administration as to how can the Mindanao crisis and other problems be wiped out there as he vowed he can. It is also a test of his choice of dictatorship. It shall show how can the three branches of the Philippine government carry out the principle of “co-equal and co-existence” in the exercise of the system of checks and balances to avoid lumping-up powers that can give rise to another dictator; a test of sincerity of the lawmakers in upholding the Philippine Constitution.
How will the concerned citizens, lovers of democracy, and the millennials react to these events?
Thank you Regie Ados and Joyce Clavecillas of the ABS-CBN for giving me the chance to elaborate my analysis and message to the public. (delsocorrodaquila@gmail.com/PN)
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
