Is the extension of Martial Law in Mindanao until December 2017 justified?

THE BEGINNING
It had been almost 3 months ago when I had been scrolling through my phone and
shocked to hear that President Rodrigo Duterte had declared Martial Law in Mindanao,
including Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi, postponing his meeting with Russian Prime
Minister Dmitry Medvedev.
Apparently, members of the local Maute terrorist group, who advocated the ISIS
ideology, occupied the entire Marawi City, blacked it out, posted snipers all around and
torched several facilities which included: St. Marys Church, the city jail, the Ninoy Aquino
School and Dansalan College. The President found it a need to declare military rule over
Mindanao, home to 20 million people, for 60 days forcing 300,000 residents to flee their
homes and seek refuge in the neighboring cities.1
According to the Presidents report, he had deduced the facts available to him that
there was an armed uprising, the culpable purpose of which was to remove from the
allegiance to the Philippine Government a portion of its territory and to deprive the Chief
Executive of any of his powers and prerogative, leading him to believe that there was
probable cause that the crime was rebellion was and is being committed and that public
safety requires the imposition of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus.2
Section 18, Article VII of our 1987 Constitution states:
The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the
Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed
forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of
invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not
exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place
the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.3
In IBP vs Zamora, it stated that this section of the Constitution highlights the intent
to grant the President the widest leeway and the broadest discretion in using the
emergency powersthe power to call out the Armed Forces being the lesser and more
benign power compared to the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
and the power to impose martial law. The last two involving the curtailment and
suppression of certain basic civil rights and individual freedoms, and thus necessitating
safeguards by Congress and review by this Court.4
And speaking of the same section in the Constitution, it adds that:
The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its
Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or
suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed 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 its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.5
Predictably, petitions questioning the Presidents decision of the declaration of
martial law flooded in the Supreme Court invoking the Courts specific and special
jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of Proclamation No. 216 and
seeking to nullify Proclamation 216 for being unconstitutional because it lacks sufficient
basis.
Unprecedentedly, the Court dismissed the petitions of Lagman, Cullamat and
Mohamad by a vote of 11 of its members; three members voted to partially grant the
petitions and one member voted to grant the petitioners.
Now we see that herein lies the difference of the Supreme Courts power and that
of the Congress. The Courts passive power to strike down the presidential proclamation
of martial law can only be initiated by an appropriate proceeding by a citizen and its
judgment basing on the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation available to
the President prior to the time of declaration. The Court does not look into the absolute
correctness of the factual basis of such information just as long as the information
available prior declaration support the conclusion of actual invasion or rebellion and that
public safety requires it, the rest is up to the President. As compared to the Congress
review, the Congress power is an automatic mechanism that it can exercise to consider
the data available prior to, but also the supervening events of the declaration. The
Congress could probe deeper and further and look into the accuracy of the facts
presented before it.6
The Congress may also revoke the proclamation or suspension, which revocation
shall not be set aside by the President as it is his constitutional duty to obey the order of
Congress, according to House Majority Floor Leader Rodolfo Farias.7
1
Jodesz Gavilan, Martial Law 101: Things you should know (May 24, 2017, 3:23PM),
http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/142723-martial-law-declaration-philippines
2 Lagman vs Medialdea, G.R. Nos. 231658, 231771, 231774 (S.C., July 4, 2017)
3 The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, Article VII 18
4 Integrated Bar of the Philippines vs. Zamora, G.R. 141284 (S.C. August 15, 2000)
5 The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, Article VII 18
6 Lagman vs Medialdea, G.R. Nos. 231658, 231771, 231774 (S.C., July 4, 2017)
7 CNN Philippines Staff. Farias: Duterte constitutionally bound to obey Congress on martial law (May 31,

2017, 11:49AM), http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/05/31/Duterte-martial-law-Constitution-House-of-

Representatives-Congress.html
THE END?

Sometime in June 23, 2017, the Malacaang and the military hailed that the
implementation of martial law in Mindanao as a success, saying that the declaration had
been key in containing the crisis in Marawi City. Presidential spokesperson Ernesto Abella
said that the main goal of containing the conflict within Marawi and preventing the crisis
from spilling over other areas was hugely successful.8
Thats a good thing right?
Personally, I supported the presidents decision of declaring martial law when he
did. However, in the subsequent turn of events, I cannot say the same thing this time.
On July 22, the Congress granted Dutertes request to extend martial law in
Mindanao until the end of the year. A total of 261 members of the Congress voted in favor
and 18 were against to extend military rule in the south until December 31, 2017.
According to Presidential Spokesman Ernesto Abella, The extension of martial law is
essential to the overall peace and stability. The rebellion in Marawi continues to persist
and we want to stop the spread of the evil ideology of terrorism and free the people of
Mindanao from the tyranny of lawlessness and violent extremism. 9

I digress.

IS THE EXTENSION OF THE MARTIAL LAW NECESSARY?

Contrary to my show of support to the decision of the President in his proclamation

of the martial law, I do not find any substantial reason for his subsequent extension of
martial law in the whole of Mindanao.
Considering that the lawless violence in Mindanao had already been sufficiently
suppressed from spilling over the neighboring cities, I find that the maintenance of peace
and stability in the recovery, reconstruction and rehabilitation of Marawi does not call for
the curtailment and suppression of certain basic civil rights and individual freedoms (i.e.
suspending the writ of habeas corpus and the extension of martial law). I do understand
that the Constitution itself vested such powers to the president for him to wield in a given
set of conditions, under his judgment call. Such that the so-called graduation of powers
does not dictate or restrict the manner by which the president decides which power to
choose.10
However, in my humble opinion, the use of such emergency powers should also
be commensurate to the degree of lawless violence that the public safety requires. If the
siege in Marawi has been sufficiently suppressed as they claimed, the power that the
President should exercise should also, in a way, lessen to decreasenay, appease the
fears of the citizens of declaring another Marcos regime level martial law. Critics have
already raised their concerns against the Duterte administration that the presidents
declaration could be the genesis of what is yet another era of the Marcos regime, which I
find absurd, not baseless (for the time being, that is). The President has his own good
intentions but his own desire for control to stop these terrorist groups has greatly
overpowered his reason.
Even when generally asked what happens during a martial law? We find no refuge
within the Constitution. As Justice Leonen said in his dissenting opinion, the Constitution
does not spell out what martial law is, or the powers that may be exercised under the
martial law regime. It only states what martial law is not and cannot accomplish. There
isnt even a legal precedent on the matter. Hence, the need for greater clarity on what is
included in martial law powers.
In his opinion, Justice Leonen attempts to answer the question himself. He stated
that martial law arises out of necessity, in extraordinary times, when the civilian
government in an area until the civilian government can be restored. Its imposition is
dependent on the inability of civil government agencies to function.11
More so, we grant this extensive power to the Presidents very own discretion
under the Constitution. The Court does not even need to satisfy itself that the Presidents
decision is correct, rather it only needs to determine whether the Presidents decision had
sufficient factual bases because requiring precision in his decision would unduly burden
him and therefore impeded the process in his decision-making.
Wouldnt his decision for the extension call for another review? Hadnt the
Congress thought about any other means and methods on which to implement the
maintenance of peace and order in Mindanao?
Surely the calling out of the Armed Forces is a sufficient method to do so. Or stricter
implementation of laws within the country. The maintenance of order stage in this whole
scenario requires a milder cure and truly the declaration for the extension is brought to
an extreme.
Also, I find it unsatisfactory for him to uphold the martial law in the whole of
Mindanao. I find for the three justices who believed that martial law was justified only in
Marawi, to wit: Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio
Carpio and Alfredo Caguioa.
The whole other parts of Mindanao had been unaffected by such siege, especially
the eastern part. The lawless violence occurring in Mindanao might truly require heavy
enforcement of rules however, personally, I find its implementation for the whole island
unnecessary.
The answer to the question is no. I find no substantial reason for the declaration of
the extension of the martial law. The martial law proclamation necessitates the presence
of lawless violence and rebellion wherein the public safety requires. Since the government
has tactically established and secured Marawi, I find that the martial should as well, be
stopped. The extension of martial law to maintain the peace and order mainly to assuage
their fears of the terrorist groups from escaping to the neighboring cities is too shallow a
reason to implement such extreme means such as curtailing ones civil rights.

8
Trisha Macas, Martial law in Mindanao 'successful' in containing Marawi crisis (June 23, 2017, 8:59PM),
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/615702/martial-law-in-mindanao-successful-in-containing-
marawi-crisis/story/
9 Elmer P. Santos and Pia Garcia, Congress grants Dutertes request to extend martial law in Mindanao

until end of year (July 22, 2017, 8:24PM), http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/07/22/Congress-votes-

martial-law-extension-Duterte.html
10 Tony La Via and Regina Ongsiako, Martial law extension and the Supreme Court (July 22, 2017, 10:52

AM)
11 Dissenting Opinion of Justice Leonen in Lagman vs Medialdea, G.R. Nos. 231658, 231771, 231774 (S.C.,

July 4, 2017