Duterte likening martial law to Marcos rule, Carpio warns
THE SUPREME COURT (SC)’s “acquiescence” to President Rodrigo R. Duterte’s pronouncement that his martial law “will not be any different” from the dictatorial rule of the late strongman Ferdinand E. Marcos, Sr. “could be fatal” to the nation’s democracy, a court justice opined.
In his 36-paged dissenting opinion, Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio said the 1987 Constitution held that the review powers of the Court on the President’s exercise of commanderin- chief powers are a “checking mechanism to prevent a recurrence of the martial law of [Mr.] Marcos.”
Mr. Carpio said Mr. Duterte’s martial law should only cover Marawi City, as opposed to the 11 other justices who held that Proclamation No. 216 — which put Mindanao and its islands under martial law rule — had sufficient factual basis and is constitutional.
Framers of the 1987 Constitution — guided by the experience of the Marcos dictatorship which collapsed the previous year — placed safeguards on martial law, such as limiting its enforcement to 60 days, deletion of “imminent danger” as a prelude to martial law, and allowing the high court and Congress to review the proclamation.
Mr. Marcos, on his enforcement of martial law in 1972, detained his critics and stayed in power for another 14 years.
Mr. Carpio flagged Mr. Duterte’s immediate likening of Proclamation No. 216 to Mr. Marcos’s declaration as “no trivial matter.”
“When President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law in 1972 under the 1935 Constitution, he abolished Congress, shut down media, imprisoned leaders of the political opposition, packed the Supreme Court with his law school classmates and loyalists, and ruled by decree — thereby making himself a dictator for over 13 years until the people ousted him from power in 1986,” Mr. Carpio stated.
Left in the wake of Mr. Marcos’s rule are about 70,000 people detained, about 34,000 people tortured, about 3,240 victims of “salvaging,” about 398 enforced disappearances, according to an infographic released by the Official Gazette. The late strongman was overthrown in 1986 by a People Power revolution led, among others, by the PDP-Laban, Mr. Duterte’s own party.
Human rights advocates branded Mr. Marcos’s 14-year rule as a “dark chapter in the Philippine history.”
Mr. Carpio said further: “It is apparent that President Duterte does not understand, or refuses to understand, this fundamental principle that forms part of the bedrock of our democracy under the 1987 Constitution, despite his having taken a solemn oath of office to ‘preserve and defend the (1987) Constitution.’”
Mr. Duterte, who has repeatedly expressed admiration to the late dictator, had earlier warned that he would ignore an SC decision against his proclamation. He has also threatened to jail critics of his declaration.
“The Court cannot play with the fire of martial law which could turn into ashes the very Constitution that members of the Court are sworn to preserve and defend, a tragic event that once befell the Court in 1972 and brought the Court to its lowest point in its history,” Mr. Carpio said.
“The Court must never allow the 1972 debacle to be ever repeated again. With this wisdom from hindsight, the Court must now stand firm and apply the clear letter and intent of the 1987 Constitution without fear or favor, for the nation and history demand no less from every member of the Court,” the senior justice said.
Mr. Carpio also warned that the Court ruling may lay precedents on determining future petitions on martial law and commanders-in-chief.
“The decision of the Court in the present petitions has far reaching ramifications on the future of our civil liberties and our democratic society under the rule of law, Mr. Carpio said, adding,
“The Court should not mercilessly inflict on the Filipino people the constant fear of a recurrence of the nightmarish martial law of Marcos.”
Voting 11-3-1, the high court, in a historic ruling, upheld Proclamation No. 216. The SC also said the President holds the “discretion to determine the territorial scope” of the martial law.
The 82-page decision was penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo.
Mr. Carpio, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno and Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa voted to limit the declaration of martial law to specific areas in Mindanao, while Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen was the lone dissenter in the 15-member court, as he moved that Proclamation No. 216 be declared unconstitutional.
Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, for his part, said Mr. Carpio’s opinion to limit the coverage of the martial law to Marawi City only “verges on the absurd,” adding, “If we are to follow a ‘piece meal’ proclamation of martial law, the President would have to declare it repeatedly.”
This was echoed by Associate Justice Jose C. Mendoza who said that: “To limit the coverage of martial law to Marawi City only is unrealistic and impractical.” He added, “Their [armed rebels] capability to launch further attacks from Marawi City, serving as a spring board to extend their influence over other areas, impelled [Mr.] Duterte to act swiftly and decisively.”
Several justices also agreed that Proclamation No. 216 was grounded on “sufficient factual basis.” Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., for his part, said: “Martial [ l]aw is the law of necessity in the actual presence of an armed conflict. The power to declare it is exercised precisely upon the principle of self-preservation in times of extreme emergency.”
For her part, Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo- De Castro concurred with Mr. Del Castillo that the government has “convincingly shown” that the rebels’ acts were “intended to lay the groundwork for the eventual establishment of a DAESH wilayah or province in Mindanao.”
Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin agreed that “the rest of Mindanao, even those not under armed conflict at the moment of the proclamation, were exposed to the same positive danger of rebellion that gave rise to the necessity for the proclamation.”
Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, for his part, said: “The siege of Marawi City and the recent increase in terrorist activities in Mindanao have, to my mind, reasonably established that there is sufficient factual basis that public safety requires the declaration of martial law for the entire Mindanao.”
Associate Justice Samuel J. Martires said: “Given the series of violent acts and armed hostilities committed and still being committed by the Maute terror group, the Abu Sayyaf group, and other armed rebel groups, which hostilities have the end view of establishing a DAESH/ ISIS wilayah or province, no less than a declaration of martial law is to be expected on the part of circumspect President to whom we entrust our nation’s safety and security.”
On concerns of a repeat of Marcos rule, Associate Justice Estela PerlasBernabe said it is the Court’s duty “to rule based on what the law requires, unswayed by unfounded fears or speculation. The ghosts of the past should not haunt, but instead, teach us to become a braver, wiser and more unified nation.”
Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes said that there are “enough safeguards” in the present Constitution to allay fears expressed by the petitioners and “ensure that the ghosts of the past would no longer return to haunt us.”
Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam said: “Those who criticize martial law are haunted by the abuses of the past and fearful of the potential dangers it may entail. But these apprehensions have no bearing when the noble objectives sought to be accomplished are the protection of the people and the defense of the state.”
The SC has yet to act on two other petitions filed against Proclamation No. 216 seeking to compel Congress to convene and deliberate on the declaration.