Martial law, unlimited

The Supreme Court (SC) has declared there was no constitutional limit to President Rody Duterte’s sole discretion to declare martial law to deal with a rebellion.

The SC majority decision penned by Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo said its “power of judicial review does not extend to calibrating the President’s decision.”

Well, if there’s unlimited rice, there’s also unlimited martial law.

The SC also dismissed fears the proclamation of martial law in Mindanao after the Marawi City siege on May 23 would lead to a dictatorial regime.

It said the nation was facing a “crisis of such magnitude and proportion that we all need to summon the spirit of unity and act as one undivided nation, if we are to overcome and prevail in the struggle at hand.”

That’s probably the reason the constitution’s framers retained martial law as a sort of “Draconian sword” the president can unsheathe to deal with such crises.

The SC on Tuesday voted 11-3-1 in favour of Proclamation No. 216 that also suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Associate Justices Antonio Carpio and Benjamin Caguioa, who concurred with the majority, said the proclamation should be confined to Marawi and several other provinces, not the whole of Mindanao.

Justice Marvic Leonen, the sole dissenter, said the Marawi conflict only needed calling out the military to deal with it, not martial law.

Justice Carpio warned his colleagues not to “play with the fire of martial law, which could turn into ashes the very Constitution that we are sworn to preserve and defend.”

He also warned against a repeat of the 1972 debacle, referring to President Ferdinand Marcos’ 14-year martial rule.

But the SC said martial law “is vital for the protection of the country not only against internal enemies but also against those enemies lurking beyond our shores.”

If there’s unlimited rice, there’s also unlimited martial law