#phmartiallaw | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

siren-news-weekly · 7 years

Photo

SC verdict on Martial Law opens doors to judicial authoritarianism

Just like the criticism on the Supreme Court that legitimized dictator Ferdinand Marcos’ martial law regime in 1973, did the present Supreme Court make itself an aid in weakening our democratic institutions?

The recent Supreme Court decision, from the well-crafted ponencia of Justice Mariano C. del Castillo, legitimized the Proclamation No. 216 declaring a state of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao. The votes of the majority of the associate justices have shown that the highest court did not really acted upon their duties as the law-makers that protects the people's rights and interests. And unlike the previous rulings since 1986, this one constituted to the recurrence of a strong presidency. Clearly, this is a dejected narration for constitutionalism.

The seeds of judicial authoritarianism have been planted. Numerous aspects of the majority ruling confirmed this.

It failed to see that the supposed rebellion described in Proclamation No. 216 relates to events happening in Marawi City only and not in the entire region of Mindanao. The president, in his report, “mistakenly included the attack on the military outpost in Butig, Lanao del Sur in February 2016, the mass jail break in Marawi City in August 2016, the Zamboanga siege, the Davao market bombing, the Mamasapano carnage and other bombing incidents in Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, and Basilan, as additional factual bases for the proclamation of martial law. It contends that these events either took place long before the conflict in Marawi City began, had long been resolved, or with the culprits having already been arrested.”

The president acted alone and did not consult the military establishment or any ranking official before making the proclamation. And during the presentation before the Committee of the Whole of the House of Representatives, it was shown that the military was even successful in pre-empting the Abu Sayyaf Group and the Maute Group's plan to take over Marawi City and other parts of Mindanao; there was absence of any hostile plan by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front; and the number of foreign fighters allied with ISIS was "undetermined" which indicates that there are only a meager number of foreign fighters who can lend support to the Maute Group.

The high court shows submissive readiness to affirm the action of the President, thus, giving him the absolute power to determine the scope of the Martial Law. The ruling said that “the power to determine the scope of territorial application belongs to the President… To reiterate, the Court is not equipped with the competence and logistical machinery to determine the strategical value of other places in the military’s efforts to quell the rebellion and restore peace.” This statement by the court paves way for a nationwide declaration of Martial Law. If, by any chance, proofs that the Maute and Abu Sayyaf were spotted in any part of the country, such as Metro Manila, then what will stop the President from extending the scope of martial law?

Our constitution should not expand powers but restrict it. Allowing the expansion of a military rule based on the President’s assessments means opening the floodgates to arbitrary decisions. This is threatening to the lives of the people and our democratic system. And sadly, this is the impression created by the pronouncement of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court also stated that accuracy is not an integral part in justifying the declaration of Martial Law which is opposite to what the constitution mandates. Sufficiency and accuracy are inseparable ideas. Accuracy of data is a necessary precedent to attain authentic “sufficiency”. In this case, the standard requirement is “sufficiency of the factual basis,” not mere “information at hand.”

The highest tribunal seems to have relinquished its fundamental role of reviewing the imposition of the martial law and checking against the unconstitutional exercise of executive power. They have given the full power to the president when this case is not even of “judicial legislation” but a mere case of check-and-balance, which is the “foundation of (the) republican system.” The constitution creatd the three significant government branches so that governmental powers should be dispersed properly. Third, the Supreme Court seemed to have virtually abdicated not only its power of review on the imposition of martial law but, more fundamentally, also its role as a checker against the unconstitutional exercise of executive power. But during these trying times, many in the House of Representatives and Supreme Court abandoned their rightful duties.

Lastly, as part of the society whose taxes were used to compensate the lawmakers and even the president, the people should never stop criticizing the decision of the Supreme Court especially if we think there are fundamental mistakes. Through this reproaches, we can make these Supreme Court justices feel accountable to the public. After all, they are fallible humans too.

Even though the petitioners failed to invalidate the pronouncement, the public are still served because the Supreme Court were given the opportunity to review it. But the people can only hope that we are not seeing history repeat itself.

Millennials are also a part of our society and it is important that they partake in issues that does not only concern them but the whole nation as well. They should take part in maintaining this democratic nation that our ancestors had fought for in so many years. The people have done so much to see the darkest days of the Philippines happen again.

#phmartiallaw #martiallaw #opinion #editorial #duterte

0 notes