SENATORS are wary over President Duterte’s disclosure made over the weekend about exercising his option to run the country under martial law if the administration’s bloody anti-drug war becomes “really virulent”.
While Senate President Aquilino L. Pimentel III said “there was nothing to worry about,” Sen. Leila de M. Lima warned that “such adventurism” could lead to Duterte’s downfall.
Asked if there was a legal basis for the Palace option to impose martial law, Senate Majority Leader Vicente C. Sotto III replied: “None…at the moment.”
For his part, Senate President Pro Tempore Franklin M. Drilon, who once served as secretary of justice, reminded Duterte that two requisites must be present to legally enforce martial rule.
“The 1987 Constitution only allows the declaration of martial law upon concurrence of two requisites: when there is actual invasion or rebellion and when public safety requires it,” Drilon said.
He also defended the media who, he noted, were again blamed by the Palace of allegedly misreporting the President’s remarks. “The way I see it, the news reports were devoid of any interpretation by the media,” Drilon said, noting that “the reports were based on the President’s speech and the statements were quoted verbatim.”
We should not blame the press for reporting what the President said, Drilon said, adding, “The truth is, mere talk of martial law is enough to send chills to the spine of Filipinos. Therefore, it should not be taken lightly.”
Pimentel promptly played down concerns triggered by Duterte’s admission that the Palace was not ruling out the imposition of martial law to crush illegal-drugs syndicates.
“Don’t worry about martial-law declaration,” Pimentel said in a text message to the BusinessMirror. “I am sure the President would make a lot of consultations before doing that.”
And when Duterte does consult other government leaders and his legal advisers, Pimentel said the President “will be reminded about the constitutional provisions about martial law, the key words of which are: 1. Invasion or rebellion; and, 2. Public safety requires it.”
This developed as neophyte Sens. Sherwin T. Gatchalian and de Lima gave contrasting positions on Duterte’s option.
Gatchalian just laughed it off when asked about Duterte’s martial-law threat made over the weekend, even as de Lima said it could backfire on the President if the Palace goes ahead with such drastic option.
“By now we should get used to the fact that rule of law is not one of the platforms of this administration,” de Lima said. “The President just does not care about it. A regime that tolerates and encourages, if not masterminds EJKs [extra-judicial killings], cannot be expected to do the least observance of the rule of law, like respecting the constitutional niceties of checks and balance in the declaration and imposition of martial law.”
De Lima added: “So, even if there is no legal basis whatsoever for Duterte’s opinion of when he can or cannot impose martial law, it is already irrelevant in a regime that has discarded constitutional government and the Bill of Rights at the very start of its term.”
Having said that, she cautioned Duterte “should be careful, since any violation of the constitutional check and balance on his power to impose martial law, like ignoring the Supreme Court or Congress, might just be the trigger for widespread opposition or even outright hostility to his regime, either by civil society or even the military.”
A former justice secretary, de Lima pointed out that martial law without constitutional basis and check and balance is simply “a state-sponsored coup d’état that
would need the extra legal support of the military.”
“If he is not sure that the military is entirely behind his adventurist plot to launch a coup d’état against our constitutional order, Duterte should think twice and be careful because this adventurism can lead to the military’s own adventurism and be the cause of his own downfall,” she warned. This developed as Sen. Paolo Benigno A. Aquino IV also prodded the Duterte administration to seriously take notice of the recent Pulse Asia survey, where 74 percent of Filipinos opposed the imposition of martial law.
“Ang mga Pinoy…they are saying ayaw na namin ng martial law, which tells me that people are looking for new solutions,” Aquino said in a television interview.
Aquino asserted the martial-law option is not the solution to the country’s problems. “Hindi ito ang sagot sa lahat ng problema natin, na kapag nagkakagulo, magma-martial law tayo. People are looking for new solutions and better ways of doing things, at kaming nasa gobyerno, we owe it to the people to provide these better solutions.”
Even as Duterte claims no one can stop him from declaring martial law if the country’s drug problems worsen, Aquino observed that his vacillating statements on martial law create uncertainty and fear among Filipinos.
Aquino recalled that just last month, Duterte declared placing the country under martial law was far from his mind, and even noted that Filipino lives did not improve under military rule during the
Marcos regime.
At one point, Aquino said, the President even indicated wanting to take out the provision in the Constitution about Congress and the Supreme Court weighing in on martial law. “Sometimes, when the President talks about these things differently, siyempre nakakakaba ito,” he said, adding: “The image of this administration, with a strong and iron hand, very fierce, very harsh, it leads to thoughts of martial law and authoritarianism.”
Moreover, Aquino echoed Pimentel and invoked the 1987 Constitution’s provision for imposing martial law which, he also noted, clearly states it can only be done during invasion or rebellion.