Analyses Martial Law Et. Al

REVISITING DECLARATIONS OF MARTIAL LAW AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL
BASIS THEREOF, AND CONFLICT IN MINDANAO
Jake Mallari
The astounding position and explanation by ATTY. FREDERICK MIKHAIL “SPOCKY”

FAROLAN provides a start for the numerous seminars to be conducted by College of Arts and
Sciences: Liberal Arts Society in cooperation with its branches namely: League of Political
Science and LAS Penpushers. The seminar’s themed UNDERSTANDING MARTIAL LAW AND
THE CONFLICT IN MINDANAO is a crucial issue that needed to be addressed not only by the
political science students and the rest of the department but also concerned individuals for the
warranted peace in southern country that would last in the test of time, and of course to clarify
the ambiguous and frequently misuse phrase Martial Law. The latter terminology is not new for
us and its lacking of established constitutional definition lead to perennial difficulty of
understanding the same. The conventional and revision of history supply us disagreeing angles in
the truth of Martial Law, exclusively in the Marcos Regime, as representation of which is either
favorable for the state and its struggle for suppressing imminent uprising or just bad and trivial in
every aspect, and the conspiracy theories in the very least often cause confusion and altercation
for both sides. Before long, I easily believe something without considering substantial evidence
and foolproof testimonies in regards to these conspiracy theories I watched in the Internet, thus
far, I became agnostic upon the matter. Likewise, the conflict in Mindanao can be traced in our
history but these annals must be put on trial, weighing the merits and circumstances that
surround this predicament that is essential in our learning of two connected fields of politics and
economy of the Philippines. Moreover, we often become bias with one another by their religion,
social class and race when we engage in this kind of discussion wherein we’re inclined in
pointing someone or groups to blame, and brainwashed by plentiful propagandas. Hence, it is
fortunate to have this seminar which addressed this essential issue and to contemplate about.
Initially, Atty. Farolan gives emphasize and consideration that even after this event, we
still won’t completely understand the dispute at hand. “It is hard to find the real root of the
conflict in Mindanao”, he begins. But along the course, Atty. Farolan mentions various instances
and his very own opinion in unequivocal manner, which not only identify the predicament in the
said part of the state but instill the students to think for them not merely to obtain the information
endow with. It is an imperative for him not to have informed student but rather a thinking one.
His position on the said matter is only for our guidance alongwith factual circumstances and
revisits of history. The last verdict is still left in our hands. Impossible it may seems, the
honorable guest speaker deems to enlightened me about the issue at hand by citing different
experience, examples and intricate explanation of the provision of the Constitution about martial
law et. al., which reads hereunder:
Section 10 (2) Article VII 1935 Constitution
1
(1) xxx
(2) The President shall be 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, insurrection, or rebellion. In case of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or
imminent danger thereof when the public safety requires it, he may suspend the writ of habeas
corpus, or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.
(3) xxx
Section 18 Article VII, 1987 Constitution
xxx
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. Within forty-eight hours
from the proclamation of martial or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,
the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting
jointly, by a vote at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may
revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the
Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be
determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such
proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without any need of a call.
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 or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within
thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the
functioning of the civil courts or the legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of
jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilian where civil courts are able to function,
nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply to persons judicially charged for
rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with the invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained
shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.
2
xxx
It is appearing that the amended provision of the Constitution limits the authority of a
president in sanctioning martial law in any part or in the whole archipelago. It is clear stated then
that a president must submit a report in the Congress. Atty. Farolan contrasts these two
provisions by pointing out the difference between the two. Likewise, Atty. Farolan emphasizes
the basis of lifting martial law in the first place. According to him, former President Marcos’
foundation in proclaiming martial law is through the virtue of 1935 Constitution, which provides
that in “imminent threat”, President may proclaim the nation under martial law to protect the
nation of the possible danger as defined thereof. For example, if Philippine navy or any
Philippines maritime patrols spot Chinese fleet seemingly armed and dangerous within their
boundary without consent of the offended country, the President of the Philippines may lift
martial law under the 1935 Constitution despite no actual damage was done by the aggressor
party. He explained it through telling his audience upon discretion of the President, he may lift
martial law if he sees upon substantial circumstances a threat for the nation is about to happen. In
case of 1972 martial law, the justification of this order was suppressing the imminent uprising of
the communist in the country and deems threat of destabilization of the government.
On the other hand, President Duterte placed Mindanao and its nearby islands under
martial law on May 23, 2017. Its justification is the escalation of conflicts in Mindanao
particularly in the siege of Marawi City. It is an animosity between the government troops
against the Maute group. The latter also has firepower and numbers that causes casualties among
locals and establishments. Thus, shows existence of actual rebellion against the administration.
However, he inferred that everything has “hugot”. “Law does not exist in a vacuum”, he said.
The law and the conflict in Mindanao have “pinaghuhugutan”. Ergo, it is important to reveal,
weigh and discuss the said “hugots” to have sound conviction and resolution in regards to this
matter. These “hugots” were expressly pointed in Islam religion and as well cultural and social
difference of the inhabitants. A fight for God wherein an act of attempt in converting one’s
religion, a fight for their land credited by history and autonomy in the region, which are
described as grounds in having “jihad”.
Meanwhile, Atty. Farolan suggested in the forum of exploring further our preceding
Constitution and the current to abet in an intellectual talks or in any purposes. Namely: The
Malolos Constitution, the Commonwealth Constitution, the Japanese Occupation Constitution,
the 1973 Constitution, the Freedom Constitution and the 1987 Constitution. Some of which are
highlighted given those germane in discussion. Likewise, he also cited that there was numerous
declaration of martial law even from the President Aguinaldo.
In conclusion, I gain so much information which is important in our study in IPE. This
also supports the idea that politics and economy is inherently connected, they have dynamic
interaction, and of course help us to think and settle on by weighing the different sides of the
conflict as what Atty. Farolan explained “There is always a story behind every story.”
3
4

Analyses Martial Law Et. Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analyses Martial Law Et. Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analyses Martial Law Et. Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REVISITING DECLARATIONS OF MARTIAL LAW AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL

BASIS THEREOF, AND CONFLICT IN MINDANAO

The astounding position and explanation by ATTY. FREDERICK MIKHAIL “SPOCKY”

Section 10 (2) Article VII 1935 Constitution

Section 18 Article VII, 1987 Constitution

You might also like