BOBBY NALZARO:

For those who have not gotten over the abuses and brutality of the Marcos regime, you have nothing to worry about, as the kind of martial law being implemented by the Duterte administration in Mindanao is different from that of Marcos. The president Ferdinand Marcos imposed martial law to prevent the escalation of rebellion, but with the hidden agenda to prolong his stay in power. But President Rodrigo Duterte implemented it with the pure intention to stop the terroristic activities of a group who has connections with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (Isis).→

If martial law is bad, based on our horrible experience under the Marcos regime, why did the framers of the 1987 Constitution still include it in the charter? Note that the members of the Constitutional Commission (ConCom) who drafted the constitution were handpicked by the late president Cory Aquino, considered as the icon of democracy. Why didn’t they delete the martial law provision in our Constitution?

ConCom members apparently saw the necessity of the said provision in cases of lawlessness, invasion or rebellion or when the public safety is threatened. However, they put some safeguards there to prevent abuses. These are found in Section 18, Article 7 (The Executive Department) of the 1987 Constitution.

So, for those who have not gotten over the brutality and abuses committed by the Marcos regime, you have nothing to worry about because the martial law imposed by President Rodrigo Duterte in Mindanao is different from that of Marcos.

Marcos implemented it to prevent the escalation of rebellion but with the hidden agenda to perpetuate himself in power. Duterte implemented it in Mindanao with the pure intention of stopping and preventing the escalation of terrorist activities committed by a Muslim terror group that reportedly has connection with the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (Isis).

Though the late dictator was justified in declaring martial law because all the elements for it were there, he went as far as closing down Congress and suspending the operations of the Constitution and the civil courts. He made laws by issuing presidential decrees. He shut down the media. His was a “one-man rule.” But Duterte’s declaration is different.

Was it justifiable? Well, according some legal experts and even the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) it was justified because one of the elements—rebellion--is present. But the civil courts and the media in Mindanao are still functioning normally. And the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are only for those charged with crimes against the state.

There is a need to impose military rule in the area because the government is not only dealing with mere lawless elements but hardcore and armed groups. Imagine taking over a city and killing innocent civilians with impunity? What can you expect our government will do? Deal with them with kid gloves?

We have also to terrorize these people. Balance of terror. And I think majority of the people of Mindanao welcome this development because they feel safe and secure with the presence of the military.

Let’s give Duterte the “benefit of the doubt” that through his drastic action, the present problem in Mindanao would be dealt with accordingly. Besides, this is not the first time that Mindanao experienced military rule. Former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo did it in Maguindanao in 2009. Diha bay mga abuso? Wala man.

We have also to terrorize these people. Balance of terror