Extending martial law
UNDER Proclamation 216, a state of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for 60 days became operational in Marawi and the rest of Mindanao. It was on the same day it ended that its extension was approved through a vote of 261-18 by a joint session of Congress. Despite the admirable arguments made by the minority opposition in both houses, it was overwhelmingly passed. The entire process, a piece of cake, indeed, was over after a few hours that included nominal voting. Those whose arguments presented some form of controversy were cut short by the four-minute time limit given for additional arguments. Only one voice from those affected on the ground was heard – that of Samira Gutoc who related complaints from women evacuees who reportedly suffered abuses by some soldiers. Because there were no formal complaints, the assumption was that there were no abuses of human rights.
This show of compliance on the part of Congress, and the earlier “deferential” attitude of the Supreme Court, came as a surprise, especially to those who drafted the Constitution as the latter had included a number of safeguards that would not make it too easy to declare or extend martial law. The expectation, as shown in the safeguards, assumed that both Congress and the Supreme Court would act more critically and independently and provide the necessary check and balance.
The questions on factual basis for the declaration of martial law and rationale for extension up to the end of the year continue to linger in our minds. Did the 279 members of our august Senate and House truly represent the realities on the ground and the desires of the people in Marawi and Mindanao and the rest of the country? Since we are speaking of a critical political change that could affect the future life of the country, the voice of every Filipino citizen and especially those affected – the “bakwit” sector, – must be heard.
Which is why Marawi Mayor Gandamra said he would form a legal team that would examine human rights complaints. But several questions and concerns raised by the minority opposition – Minority Leader Frank Drilon and Risa Hontiveros, among others – did not get satisfactory answers. Senator Drilon asked whether martial law is still necessary in Marawi where to date, only four (three as of the other day) of the 20 barangays remain occupied by the Maute terrorists? And that only 10 of the 27 provinces were cited in the President’s report as affected areas. Factors justifying martial law like threats of rebellion are likewise not present.
And if martial law does not confer new powers, why the need for extension if existing powers are adequate? Our courts local governments, and Congress still continue to function. Those implementing martial law (Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, AFP General Edwardo Ano, and PNP Director General Ronald de la Rosa) must answer these questions. Symbolic, they may say, which is similar to Solicitor-General Calida’s reply that martial law has no added legal power except that it has an exclamation point, meant to make terrorists listen.
But as Rep. Villarin, a member of the House’s Magnificent 7, noted, martial law is a hard habit to break. An emboldened military may carry out indiscriminate firing and other violations. Others raise the issue of confidence among investors, and perceived problems of security by prospective tourists. The international community sees countries under martial law as police states, threats to constitutional democracy. It freezes power of the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. A prolonged martial law can risk the political security of the society. Local leaders may form an alliance against the government. Trading and transport of goods and services will be affected. And, of course, the threat of human rights abuses, especially to women and children. Former President Fidel Ramos noted that it has more harmful rather than positive consequences as it can derail the economy and lead to considerable human rights abuses.
While the manifestations of “creeping authoritarianism” may seem harmless at the beginning, this state could lead to the gradual deterioration of democratic institutions. It may lead to the whittling of democratic values of freedom and spirit of autonomy and self-determination. A foreign analyst opines that martial law may reflect a pattern of leadership that may extend over time, and may cover possibility of vendetta in drug wars.
In addition to our own experience of the horrors and violations of our rights during the martial law of the seventies, we may wish to examine other country cases such as that of Pakistan which in 1958, after 11 years of its initial democratic existence, came under military rule. Since then, the country has alternated between martial law and democratic government, and has existed in a “state of constitutional ambivalence.” Other examples are Poland, Egypt, and Latin American under a military junta. My email: