Opposition solons to Duterte: Public has spoken, stop martial law threat
Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman and President Rodrigo Duterte. FILE PHOTOS
Now that the people have spoken, President Rodrigo Duterte should stop making empty threats of declaring martial law, opposition solons from the independent minority bloc said on Wednesday.
“The people have spoken. President Duterte and his men must stop talking about tinkering with the revival of martial law,” Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman from the Liberal Party said in a statement.
He was reacting to a Pulse Asia survey conducted December 6-11, 2016 that shows 74 percent of 1,200 respondents disagreed with the test statement: “Candidly speaking, it may be necessary now to have martial law to solve the many crises of the nation.”
READ: Most Filipinos find martial law unnecessary—Pulse Asia
Lagman said the conditions for imposing martial law, such as invasion or rebellion or when the public safety requires it, are absent, although he questioned the President’s earlier statement when Duterte said “I am smarter than martial law.”
Article continues after this advertisement“The adverse reaction of the people to authoritarian rule must compel the President to explain what he means by his enigmatic statement that ‘I am smarter than martial law,’ when asked whether he would declare martial law,” Lagman said.
Article continues after this advertisementLagman said this might mean Duterte found no need to declare martial law, especially at a time there are already summary killings of suspected drug criminals at the height of the administration’s war on drugs that has claimed over 6,000 lives already.
“Does he mean to impress that without even declaring martial law he can impose and realize the effects of martial law like the unabated extrajudicial killings relative to his deadly campaign against the drug menace?” Lagman said.
For his part, Liberal lawmaker Ifugao Rep. Teddy Baguilat, who led the opposition bloc called “Magnificent 7” as its minority leader, said the Pulse Asia survey results showed that there is no blind support for Duterte despite his high trust and approval ratings.
READ: Robredo ratings dip, Duterte trust still highest — Pulse Asia
“That’s encouraging because majority of Filipinos who want change still adhere to a more democratic governance,” Baguilat said in a text message.
“While the President enjoys high trust and approval ratings, it’s not blind allegiance to all that he stands for,” he added.
Akbayan Rep. Tom Villarin meanwhile said the Pulse Asia survey shows that the Filipinos have not forgotten the history of martial law, which was declared by the dictator Ferdinand Marcos to cement his two-decade regime amid killings, torture and enforced disappearances of critics and activists.
“The people are conscious of their democratic rights and freedom and will not allow anyone to take it away from them. It shows that Filipinos have not forgotten the dark days of Marcos’ dictatorial rule,” Villarin said in a text message.
Villarin said Duterte better be warned that any declaration of martial law would be rejected outright by the people.
“President Duterte is therefore forewarned that any attempt at imposing martial law will be futile and soundly rejected by our people. If they will push through with authoritarian rule by changing our Constitution under the guise of federalism, it will be the downfall of this regime,” Villarin said.
Villarin reminded Duterte that his high ratings do not give him the license to declare martial law out of whim.
“Being popular does not give one a carte blanche to do anything one desires,” Villarin said.
The majority opinion against the need to declare martial law was the prevailing sentiment in all geographic areas (65 to 81 percent), socioeconomic classes (67 to 76 percent), age groupings (70 to 71 percent), and among both men and women (73 and 74 percent, respectively), Pulse Asia said.
Only 12 percent agreed that it was necessary to impose martial rule, while 14 percent was undecided.
The percentage of respondents who disagree with martial law in the December survey also increased by ten percentage points, from 64 percent in September 2016.
The survey had a margin of error of ± 3% at 95 percent confidence level.
Duterte in his earlier speeches mulled the idea of declaring martial law to solve the country’s problems, even to the point of bypassing the checks and balances in the Constitution when he said he does not want to seek the nod of Congress and the Supreme Court in declaring martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
But in a live television interview on December 29 last year, Duterte put the issue to rest and said he does not need to declare martial law, warning that it could lead to the country’s demise.
“It will lead to the downfall of the country. Me, I don’t need to do it [declare martial law]. Ever,” Duterte then vowed.
READ: Duterte on martial law: Why should I do it? I don’t need it
But on December 22 last year, Duterte raised the idea of bypassing Congress and the Supreme Court in declaring martial law, warning of conflicting findings that would confuse the law-enforcement agencies.
“If I declare martial law and there is an invasion or war, I cannot proceed on and on, especially if there is trouble. I have to go to Congress, I have to go to the Supreme Court if anybody would file a complaint to look into the factual [basis of the declaration],” Duterte then said.
“But what if the world is in chaos?… That’s why there is martial law, so that only one person would be giving directions,” he added.
READ: Duterte’s wish: Martial law sans Congress, SC nod
Duterte then called the judicial and legislative safeguards in the Constitution a “reckless reaction” to the regime of the dictator Marcos, who cemented his stay in power through martial law amid human rights violations, torture and enforced disappearances.
Under Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution, the President may suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or declare martial law in case of invasion or rebellion, or when the public safety requires it, for a period not exceeding 60 days.
The President is then required to submit a report to Congress about the suspension of the writ or the martial law declaration within 48 hours.
Congress in a majority vote may revoke or even extend the suspension of the writ. The President cannot set aside the decision if Congress revokes it.
The Supreme Court may also review the factual basis of the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension upon the filing of a petition from a concerned citizen. JE
