Bulatlat - The Philippines's alternative weekly magazine

Commenting on the proposed amendments that will make it easier to declare martial law, Atty. Rommel Bagares said, “So we are having a repeat of what happened in 1973. Mas nakakahiya ngayon kasi parang hindi tayo natututo sa kasaysayan. (It is even more embarrassing now because it seems as if we never learned from history.) We are mocking the lessons we have learned in history during the Marcos time. Even worse now because we have had two people power uprisings, two historical events that should have solidified our commitment against tyranny and graft and corruption.”

The imminent passage by the House of Representatives (HOR) of the proposed amendments to the 1987 Constitution, lawyers warn, will lead to the legalization of violations on the civil and political rights of the Filipino people, especially the political opposition and those who the state deems as its “enemies” such as leaders and members of progressive groups and organizations.

A comparative study of the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Philippine Constitutions by Prof. Carmelo V. Sison of the University of the Philippines Law Center shows that provisions pertaining to the declaration of martial law are worded the same way in both the 1935 and 1973 charters. Because the 1987 charter was a product of what the Supreme Court called a revolutionary government established after the downfall of the Marcos dictatorship, it contains provisions protecting the rights of citizens from state abuses.

Atty. Rommel Bagares of the Roque and Butuyan Law Offices, in an interview with Bulatlat, said that the

1987 Constitution had checks and balances because it requires the President to justify before Congress the basis for the declaration of martial law.

In the proposed amendments to the 1987 Constitution now pending before the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments, the provisions for the declaration of martial law are exactly the same as that of the 1935 and 1973 charters.

“So we are having a repeat of what happened in 1973. Mas nakakahiya ngayon kasi parang hindi tayo natututo sa kasaysayan. (It is even more embarrassing now because it seems as if we never learned from history.) We are mocking the lessons we have learned in history during the Marcos time. Even worse now because we have had two people power uprisings, two historical events that should have solidified our commitment against tyranny and graft and corruption,” said Atty. Bagares.

What’s worse, he added, is that the constitutional jurisprudence on the powers of the president to put the country under martial rule started during the time the Philippines was a direct colony of the U.S. “Because of the colonial legacy of the Americans, a lot of our jurisprudence and constitutional law have these clauses against freedom movements and rebels because of America’s paranoia,” he said.

Below is the comparative table of the three charters and the proposed amendments.

Proposed Amendments

Sec. 12 The Prime Minister 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 or rebellion or imminent danger thereof, when the public safety requires it, he may suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.

1987

Sec 18. 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 60 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 law or the suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting joint, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by t he 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 civilians 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 only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent 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.

1973

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, or imminent danger thereof, when the public safety requires it, he may suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or place the Philippines or any part thereof under Martial Law.

1935

Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.