Effective May 23,
2017, and for a period not exceeding 60 days, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte
issued Proclamation No. 216 declaring a state of martial law and
suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole
of Mindanao.XXXthe Lagman Petition claims that the declaration of
martial la has no sufficient factual basis because there is no rebellion or
invasion in Marawi City or in any part of Mindanao. It argues that acts of
terrorism in Mindanao do not constitute rebellion[12] since there
is no proof that its purpose is to remove Mindanao or any part thereof from
allegiance to the Philippines, its laws, or its territory.[13] It labels the
flying of ISIS flag by the Maute Group in Marawi City and other outlying areas
as mere propaganda[14] and not an
open attempt to remove such areas from the allegiance to the Philippine
Government and deprive the Chief Executive of the assertion and exercise of his
powers and prerogatives therein. It contends that the Maute Group is a mere
private army, citing as basis the alleged interview of Vera Files with Joseph
Franco wherein the latter allegedly mentioned that the Maute Group is more of a
"clan's private militia latching into the IS brand theatrically to inflate
perceived capability".[15] The Lagman
Petition insists that during the briefing, representatives of the military and
defense authorities did not categorically admit nor deny the presence of an
ISIS threat in the country but that they merely gave an evasive answer[16] that
"there is ISIS in the Philippines".[17] The Lagman
Petition also avers that Lt. Gen. Salvador Mison, Jr. himself admitted that the
current armed conflict in Marawi City was precipitated or initiated by the
government in its bid to capture Hapilon.[18] Based on said
statement, it concludes that the objective of the Maute Group's armed
resistance was merely to shield Hapilon and the Maute brothers from the
government forces, and not to lay siege on Marawi City and remove its
allegiance to the Philippine Republic.[19] It then posit
that if at all, there is only a threat of rebellion in Marawi City which is
akin to "imminent danger" of rebellion, which is no longer a valid
ground for the declaration of martial law.[20]
RULING:Considering the country's history, it
is understandable that the resurgence of martial law would
engender apprehensions among the citizenry. Even the Court as an institution
cannot project a stance of nonchalance. However, the importance of martial law in the
context of our society should outweigh one's prejudices and apprehensions
against it. The significance of martial law should not be
undermined by unjustified fears and past experience. After all, martial law is critical
and crucial to the promotion of public safety, the preservation of the nation's
sovereignty and ultimately, the survival of our country. It is vital for the
protection of the country not only against internal enemies but also against
those enemies lurking from beyond our shores. As such, martial law should not be
cast aside, or its scope and potency limited and diluted, based on bias and
unsubstantiated assumptions.
Conscious of these fears and apprehensions, the Constitution placed several safeguards which effectively watered down the power to declate martial law. The 1987 Constitution "[clipped] the powers of [the] Commander-in-Chief because of [the] experience with the previous regime."[261] Not only were the grounds limited to actual invasion or rebellion, but its duration was likewise fixed at 60 days, unless sooner revoked, nullified, or extended; at the same time, it is subject to the veto powers of the Court and Congress.
Conscious of these fears and apprehensions, the Constitution placed several safeguards which effectively watered down the power to declate martial law. The 1987 Constitution "[clipped] the powers of [the] Commander-in-Chief because of [the] experience with the previous regime."[261] Not only were the grounds limited to actual invasion or rebellion, but its duration was likewise fixed at 60 days, unless sooner revoked, nullified, or extended; at the same time, it is subject to the veto powers of the Court and Congress.
No comments:
Post a Comment