spot_img
29 C
Philippines
Thursday, March 28, 2024

Who’s afraid of martial law?

- Advertisement -

There are three things that Supreme Court justices who opposed and dissented from the majority opinion on the declaration of martial law have in common.

First, all of them are paranoid that martial law, Marcos-style, will come into effect.

Second, that the Court gave President Rodrigo Duterte the license to extend martial law and expand it to the whole country if he believes that the IS-inspired Maute and Abu Sayyaf groups would spill beyond the borders of Mindanao.

Third, that there would be human rights abuses and extrajudicial killings reminiscent of the dark days under Marcos.

- Advertisement -

I think these spring from prejudice arising from mere speculation.

If one reads Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution, one will discover that it is a reactionary charter to erase everything that reminded Mrs. Cory Aquino of her predecessor.

Under the 1987 charter, martial law is a toothless tiger. It enumerates the things the president or the martial law administrator can and cannot do.

In case of invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it, the President may for a period of 60 days suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines (or any part thereof) under martial law. However, within 48 hours from the proclamation, the president shall submit a report to Congress, either in person or in writing.

Congress, voting jointly, or a vote of at least a majority of all its members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation. The revocation shall not be set aside by the President.

Upon the initiative of the president, Congress may extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by Congress if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and if public safety requires it.

Congress, if not in session, shall within 24 hours following such proclamation convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding initiated by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate in a decision thereon within 30 days of its filing.

A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution (with reference to civil and human rights) to authorize the conferment of jurisdiction military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, or automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.

The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged with rebellion or invasion or offenses inherent to or connected with the invasion.

During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days; otherwise, he shall be released.

The case of Marawi City is a clear case of rebellion. It’s on the ground, more than anything else. And since the rebels are IS-inspired, it means that their only object is to sow panic and terror.

It is the height of naivete on the part of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Justices Antonio Carpio and Benjamin Caguioa to think that the rebels-terrorists will stop when the siege of Marawi ends. The IS in fact wants to establish a caliphate in this part of the world.

Intelligence reports have already confirmed the existence of these terror cells in other Mindanao cities.

Should President Duterte wait for all these to happen?

In fact, I would like to think that the extension of martial law is urgent at the rate the terror groups are acquiring firearms and ammunition.

I will not go so far as to subscribe to Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez’s proposal, however, to extend martial law until the end of Mr. Duterte’s term. It will also be stupid because it will discourage investments and economic growth.

Still, those opposing martial law in Mindanao obviously do not understand what is going on. They are misled by their biases.

* * *

The Supreme Court should now act on the fate of the “Ilocos Six.” They have been detained for far too long by the House of Representatives because of their refusal to answer questions on the supposed misuse of tobacco excise taxes by the Ilocos Norte provincial government.

The refusal of House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez to honor the decision of the Court of Appeals is a miscarriage of justice. It has also created a constitutional crisis simply because Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Farinas, who is salivating to be governor, wants to file a case against the incumbent governor, Imee Marcos.

In the first place, the House and the Speaker have two other remedies to solve this crisis. They can file a motion for reconsideration, and they can elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

Alvarez obviously thinks he is above the law, and head of the House of Representatives.

So why is the chief justice dragging her feet on the matter?

* * *

Another case of stupidity on the part of Alvarez is his advocacy for same-sex marriage. He also wants couples living together outside of marriage to be given the rights and privileges of a married couple.

Alvarez obviously believes that having mistresses is the new norm.

And same-sex unions? Let’s see how far that goes with the Catholic majority.

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles