As far as I can tell, the people who are against the imposition of martial law in Mindanao fear two things: the past and the future. What they don’t seem to understand is that military rule is necessary on the island at the current time, when it is most needed, and as allowed by the present Constitution, which put in so many safeguards to prevent the abuses of the past.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard the first of the oral arguments of the people who filed the three petitions calling for the tribunal to order the lifting of martial law in Mindanao. The petitioners could not help but explain that they went to the court prospectively, because they feared a repeat of the abuses of Ferdinand Marcos’ martial law, which was imposed in 1972.
One lawyer purportedly representing residents of Marawi City, where the fighting against the terrorist Maute group continues to rage, pointed out that President Rodrigo Duterte’s admiration of Marcos’ imposition of military rule made his Proclamation 216 suspect. Another petitioner, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, continued on the same line, saying that Duterte described what Marcos did as “very good” and vowing to replicate it “with equal harshness.”
Therein lies the entire problem, I think. While it is perfectly legal, according to the 1987 Constitution, for any citizen to go to the Supreme Court for relief against the imposition of martial law by any president, I cannot be convinced that this should be done without any proof of abuse by the government.
According to the charter, the high court should determine if there is a factual basis for declaring martial law. And the facts that we have so far definitely do not support the prospective or backward-looking fears raised by the petitioners.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo pointed this out to Lagman in this manner: “The military casualty count as of last Sunday is already 58 soldiers, Congressman. Dead soldiers of ours. And there are 25,000 evacuees now in Iligan City. So for you the situation is still not that serious for martial law. With all the safeguards, I don’t know why you are so worried.”
Indeed, the 1987 charter’s provisions on martial law were drafted precisely to prevent the abuses that happened under Marcos beginning in 1972. This is why military rule is limited to only 60 days and will require congressional approval to be extended after that.
It’s not the same martial law that Marcos declared, definitely. And yet, the post-1972 charter still allows martial law, in all likelihood because its framers foresaw the need for it—albeit in a new, less malevolent and abuse-prone form—at some future date.
All the same, the facts that the Supreme Court must appreciate are not in the past or in the future, but in the present time. And a lot of them are probably not even available for public consumption, given the sensitivity of the operation to get the terrorists out of Marawi City.
As far as abuses by the military in Marawi and in all other parts of Mindanao are concerned, Lagman and his fellow petitioners cannot point to any that have taken place. Even the discovery of the huge stash of cash and checks left behind by the terrorists in a Marawi house, untouched by the Marines who found it, belies this claim.
Just the facts, please. Your unfounded fears of a repeat of the past in the future are not what the Supreme Court needs to hear.
* * *
As for the petitioners’ argument that not all of Mindanao needed to be placed under temporary military rule, I beg to disagree with that allegation, as well. The recent arrests, in quick succession, of the father and mother of the brothers Maute, Omarkhayyam and Abdullah, as security measures were tightened outside of Marawi, would not have happened if martial law was limited only to the besieged city.
And if the petitioners would only take the time to go to Mindanao and to talk to some of its 21 million residents, they will find—as factual reporting on the ground already has—that the people are actually thankful that the measures in place have kept the terrorists from spreading their particularly bloodthirsty form of Islamic militancy outside of Marawi.
The lack of reports of abuse by the military and the police in Mindanao is by far the strongest argument that the government can make to defend the proclamation and its coverage. Even the New People’s Army, which has made Mindanao business and industry easy marks for their extortionist activities, has preferred to lie low there, perhaps because they fear quick retaliation from a military that is on its toes throughout the island.
But perhaps the real reason for the opposition to Duterte’s martial law can be found in the political leanings of the people that are against it: These are the politicians like Lagman and their sympathizers, including some benighted lawyers and even members of the Catholic hierarchy, who will not find anything good in what Duterte does—even if he is just doing everything he can to stop the terrorists from taking over Marawi.
The fact-free petitions filed before the Supreme Court must finally be viewed in this purely partisan light, never mind if, at this late date, none of his critics have come forward with a workable alternative to swift and relentless military action in Marawi and elsewhere. The court must throw out these petitions and tell the people who filed them to go home and return when they have more than just their unfounded fears and clear biases to present as facts.
