Congress called to review martial law declaration

Calls are mounting for Congress to convene a joint session to review President Rodrigo Duterte’s
declaration of martial law in Mindanao, following the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold its legality and
amid recommendations to extend it by another two months.

“Since it’s safe to assume that there will be calls for the extension of martial law in Mindanao, it’s important
that we first get a report from the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police of the
actual gains delivered by martial law in the fight against Maute and other terrorists,” Ifugao Rep. Teddy
Baguilat said.

Extend martial law

ADVERTISEMENT

Baguilat, one of the petitioners against Proclamation No. 216 issued by Mr. Duterte, argued that government
forces could still effectively fight the terrorists “even without the extraordinary powers of martial law.”

On Tuesday, Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez said he would support proposals to extend martial law beyond the
60-day period mandated by the 1987 Constitution. The period expires on July 22.

But this time, Alvarez said, Congress in a joint session would have to approve the extension, unlike the first
time when the two chambers opted to separately issue resolutions expressing support for martial law.

Ads by Kiosked

Vice President Leni Robredo joined calls for a congressional review of the proclamation, saying this was a
“constitutional duty.”

Waiting for word

Sen. Richard Gordon told reporters that he expected Mr. Duterte to extend martial law.

“He should send us a communication that he is extending it and we can approve that for a period to be
determined by us,” Gordon said.

In seeking an extension, the President would give Congress a chance to support his fight against terrorism
and involve all three government branches, according to Sen. Francis Escudero.
ADVERTISEMENT

Brig. Gen. Restituto Padilla said that aside from dismantling Islamic State-allied terrorists, the military also
had orders “to degrade the capabilities” of the communist-led New People’s Army (NPA) after the rebels
launched attacks against the government.

“They issued a directive that said you should heighten or enhance the attack against the PNP and the Armed
Forces. So that was just in answer to that,” the AFP spokesperson said. “It’s a tit-for-tat.”

Talk-and-fight situation

Padilla maintained this did not mean an end to peace talks. “Actually, the NPA and the Armed Forces are in
a talk-and-fight and fight-and-talk situation,” he said.
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold martial law was met with mixed feelings in the Catholic Church.

“The majority of the people of Mindanao are happy. Truly we want peace and martial law is the ultimate
instrument to give us peace here,” said Ozamiz Archbishop Martin Jumoad.

Sorsogon Bishop Arturo Bastes called the declaration “overkill” and “a sign of incapability of our Armed
Forces to control lawlessness and terrorism.”

“It gives a bad image of our country and scares tourists,” Bastes said.

In a statement, the leftist Bagong Alyansang Makabayan warned: “The extension of martial law will no
doubt bring about more abuses by state security forces. We have received several reports of illegal arrests,
arbitrary detention, filing of trumped-up charges and militarization of communities in Mindanao. The
Supreme Court becomes complicit in the abuses now taking place in Mindanao.” —With reports from
Christine O. Avendaño, Philip C. Tubeza, Jaymee T. Gamil, and Julie M. Aurelio

Martial law vs terrorism a fallacy, says SC justice

By: Marlon Ramos - Reporter / @MRamosINQ
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 07:34 AM July 06, 2017

Imposing martial law to fight terrorism is a “fallacy,” according to Associate Justice Marvic
Leonen, the lone dissenter in the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court that upheld the
constitutionality of President Rodrigo Duterte’s martial law order in Mindanao.

The court spokesperson on Tuesday announced that the magistrates voted 11-3-1 to support the
constitutionality of the President’s declaration, throwing out three petitions that questioned the
factual basis of the emergency. Three justices partially agreed with the decision.

Not yet released

ADVERTISEMENT

The texts of the majority decision and the concurring and dissenting opinions had not been
released as of press time on Wednesday.

Leonen, who tweeted to reporters excerpts from his dissenting opinion, challenged his colleagues
on the 15-member tribunal to stand up against efforts to “clothe authoritarianism in any disguise
with the mantle of constitutionality.”

He said members of the Islamic State-inspired Maute terror group that stormed Marawi City on
May 23, prompting the emergency proclamation, should not be regarded as rebels, but terrorists
“capable of committing atrocious acts.”
Ads by Kiosked
“Never again should this court allow itself to step aside when the powerful invoke vague powers
that feed on fear but could potentially undermine our most cherished rights,” Leonen said.

“Never again should we fall victim to a false narrative that a vague declaration of martial law is
good for us no matter the circumstances,” he stressed.

Lesson in history

“History teaches us that to rely on the iron fist of an authoritarian backed up by the police and the
military to solve our deep-seated social problems that spawn terrorism is fallacy,” he said.

The magistrate said the tribunal, in dismissing the petitions against Mr. Duterte’s Proclamation
No. 216, should “exorcise with passion” what he described as “the ghost of [Ferdinand] Marcos’
martial law … whenever its resemblance reappears.”
ADVERTISEMENT

“We should temper our fears with reason. Otherwise, we succumb to the effects of the weapons of
terror. We should dissent — even resist — when offered the farce that martial law is necessary
because it is only an exclamation point,” he said.

“The terrorist wins when we suspend all that we believe in. The terrorist wins when we replace
social justice with disempowering authoritarianism,” he said.