Worse than martial law | Inquirer Opinion
With Due Respect

Worse than martial law

Widespread is the anxiety over the possible imposition of martial law, stoked no doubt by mixed messages from President Duterte and conflicting “clarifications” from his Cabinet members.

Emergency measure. At one time, the President remonstrated, “Would you rather that I declare martial law?” Yet later on, he complained of martial law’s dependency on Congress and the Supreme Court. He wanted martial law in which “only one person should be in control,” without the constitutional checks that balance this awesome executive power.

I think that, constitutionally understood and implemented, martial law need not be feared. It is really a temporary emergency measure to enable the President to meet contingencies that cannot be adequately addressed by normal presidential prerogatives.

Article continues after this advertisement

Unfortunately, however, Ferdinand Marcos misused martial law to perpetuate himself in power, to loot the treasury, and to deprive our people of their basic rights to life, liberty and property without due process.

FEATURED STORIES

He invented excuses to proclaim it, crafted “constitutional authoritarianism” to justify it, prolonged it beyond its temporal nature, and abused it to crush his enemies, keep the military in an iron grip, eliminate the old oligarchy, and establish a new society of cronies and dynasties.

Constitutional antidotes. To prevent a repetition of these excesses, the 1987 Constitution limited the grounds for proclaiming martial law to only two: “invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it,” and restricted its duration to 60 days, extendible “for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.”

Article continues after this advertisement

The new Constitution commands the President, within 48 hours from the proclamation of martial law, to “submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress” which, in turn, could revoke the proclamation, “voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members…”

Article continues after this advertisement

It also mandates the Supreme Court to “review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law… and [to] promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.” Thus, the Court could nullify its proclamation, duration and/or extension.

Article continues after this advertisement

Moreover, its scope had been narrowed; it “does not suspend the … Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or the legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians …, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ” of habeas corpus. Neither does it authorize illegal arrest and indefinite detention.

Clearly then, if all these constitutional safeguards are faithfully followed, and Congress and the Supreme Court discharge their mandates prudently and independently, we need not fear martial law.

Article continues after this advertisement

Moreover, I dare say that we also need not worry NOW about the proposed defanging of Congress and the Supreme Court. These proposals will still have to be debated in the public sphere, approved by the proposed constituent assembly, and ratified by the people in a nationwide plebiscite. The process would take a few years of democratic debate and political struggle.

Suspension of Charter. What I believe is of immediate concern is not martial law under the Constitution but the suspension, or worse, the abolition of the Constitution. Once the Constitution is suspended or abolished, so would Congress, the Supreme Court and the safeguards be.

In such a scenario, only the patriotism and good health of the President, the fidelity of the military and the police, and the eternal vigilance of our people would mitigate excesses and misrule.

This happened in 1986 when Cory Aquino set aside the 1973 Constitution and set up a revolutionary government. But unlike Mr. Duterte, she ascended the presidency via a peaceful revolution, not via the democratic processes of an existing Charter.

And unlike Marcos, her dictatorship was short (one year) and her ensuing 1987 Constitution cherished basic rights and enshrined benign martial law.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com

TAGS: Constitution, Cory Aquino, Ferdinand Marcos, martial law, Rodrigo Duterte

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.