Martial law, 2
(Continued from yesterday) hile most politicians who want to ingratiate themselves to Malacañang have expressed support to President Rodrigo Duterte’s imposition of military rule in Mindanao following the rampage of the Maute group in Marawi City, well-meaning people are asking if the basis is sufficient for such an imposition. Was the President’s response commensurate to the threat?
This is not the first time in our history that terrorists lay siege on an area in Mindanao. But let us not go too far down. In September 2013, rogue elements of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) under Habier Malik occupied four barangays in Zamboanga City—Rio Hondo, Sta. Catalina, Sta. Barbara and Talon-talon where they took 200 hostages and went on a burning spree. Tens of thousands of residents fled the affected villages.
No talk of declaring martial law during the occupation. Instead, the siege was ended by a combination of military offensive and negotiations. I think this was the time when the Police Regional Office (PRO) 7 sent a contingent to Zamboanga to help quell the armed attack. In the end, the siege left around 200 people dead, thousands of houses and other structures burned and a number of people rendered homeless. It lasted 20 days.
I think the Zamboanga siege is no different from the Marawi City crisis even if the faces of the protagonists are different. What the Maute group that is on a rampage in Mandaue City is doing is basically similar to what the rogue elements of the MNLF did in Zamboanga City. The Mautes engaged the military in skirmishes, held hostages and burned structures. The difference is in government’s response. Can’t the Duterte admin quell the Maute rampage without declaring martial law?
It does look like the President sees the Maute group differently from, say, the MNLF, Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Abu Sayyaf because the group has pledged allegiance to the terrorist Middle East-based organization Islamic State. But the Maute group still has to show that its capability is equal to the hype it has been generating.
While the President has been talking about declaring martial law in Mindanao for weeks, using the supposed terrorist threat as basis, he did it when he was on an official trip in Russia. Admittedly, the advances in technology now allows leaders to follow developments on home grounds even if they are in another place, but was the Marawi situation objectively assessed before the decision was made?
In this sense, the provision of the 1987 Constitution on the declaration of military rule needs to be followed. Congress needs to convene and look into the basis not only of the martial law declaration but also of the scope of that declaration. Since the present Congress, which is controlled by a “supermajority” aligned with the Duterte, may not be relied upon to do that, then well-meaning citizens can go to the Supreme Court.
Asking if there was sufficient basis for the imposition of military rule in Mindanao does not mean one is against the government effort to quell the Maute rampage. It is merely to ensure that the rule of law is upheld.
W