The Supreme Court’s main opinion upholding the power of the President to declare martial law is worrisome and unsettling as it appears wholesale and expansive in application and consequence.
How can the Court review such extraordinary power yet cannot limit it? It gives too much credit and trust to the man on horseback.
The territorial analogy the Court used is so myopic and simplistic that it seems to bury its own head in the sand. It not only sweeps aside the concrete historical experience of martial rule but is also in denial of the kinetic tendencies toward militarism and authoritarianism. It might upstage the Marcos martial law jurisprudence in length, but not in depth.
Now the gloating militarists have confirmed that anyone aside from the real terrorists can be a premeditated target in their judgment.
We dread the day when the courts would practically cease to exist because of this unbridled authoritarian license gratuitously bestowed by an institution that arguably abdicated its crucial power by seemingly yielding to bullying tactics and responses.
What a nightmare punctuated with dire consequences.
NERI JAVIER COLMENARES, EPHRAIM B. CORTEZ, MA. CRISTINA Y. TANSECO, MINERVA F. LOPEZ, MANEEKA SARZA, KATHY PANGUBAN, MARIA CRISTINA P. YAMBOT, National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers, nupl2007@gmail.com