President Rodrigo Roa Duterte. KARL NORMAN ALONZO/Presidential Photo
Lawmakers from the opposition bloc said it would be erroneous and illogical for President Rodrigo Duterte to declare martial law if the drug situation in the country became, in his words, “virulent.”
The congressmen belonging to the independent minority bloc said it was erroneous for the President to cite the drug war as a ground for declaring martial law because the 1987 Constitution was clear that martial law may be declared only if there is invasion, rebellion or if the public safety requires it.
The virulence of the drug problem is not a ground to declare martial law, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said.
“No amount of virulence of the drug menace can be a constitutional anchor for the imposition of martial law because under the Constitution, the declaration can only be based on the existence of invasion or rebellion when public safety requires it,” Lagman said.
Akbayan Rep. Tom Villarin said the President should stop threatening martial law especially by making the drug situation a justification.
“President Duterte has to stop making threats about declaring martial law as it won’t help the public see through his policies. A ‘virulent’ drug problem will never be a justification for such declaration either constitutionally or plain common sense,” Villarin said.
For his part, Ifugao Rep. Teddy Baguilat, who leads the House independent minority bloc as their minority leader, said the President’s statement defies logic by saying the drug situation worsened when the Philippine National Police (PNP) has said it was winning the war against drugs.
READ: Bato: PNP ‘winning war on drugs’ in Duterte’s first 100 days
“It’s illogical and erroneous but perhaps just Digong’s bluster to once again reinforce the paradigm that the drug war is the most important activity of this administration and everything else is secondary,” Baguilat said.
“Illogical because when your PNP top brass says we’re winning the war against drugs and crime then the situation is unlikely to turn virulent. So why insinuate martial law?” he added.
Baguilat said not only was the statement erroneous, it was only meant to strike fear among the public by making an empty threat.
“Erroneous because under the Constitution, only an invasion and rebellion justifies martial law which can be questioned by Congress and by any citizen before the Supreme Court. So perhaps it’s really just panindak (threat),” Baguilat said.
Magdalo Rep. Gary Alejano warned that the President’s insistence to skirt the constitutional limits on the declaration of martial law might cause instability in the country.
“If the Supreme Court decides that the declaration of martial law was unconstitutional, and yet he insists not to follow, it would create a constitutional crisis that would cause instability in the country,” Alejano said in Filipino.
In a speech before members of the Davao City Chamber of Commerce last Saturday, Duterte said no one could stop him from declaring martial law if the drug situation becomes “virulent.”
He added that he could transcend even the constitutional limits on declaring martial law.
“Kung gusto ko, and if it will deteriorate into something really very virulent, I will declare martial law if I want to. Walang makapigil sa akin (If I wanted to…no one can stop me),” Duterte said.
READ: Duterte to declare martial law if situation in PH turns ‘virulent’
“If I have to declare martial law, I will declare it, not because of invasion, insurrection, I will declare martial law to preserve my nation, period,” he added.
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 on 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 privilege. 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.
READ: Duterte draws flak for comment on martial law
Duterte made his latest remark just a month after he put the issue to rest in a television interview December 29 last year when he said he does not need to declare martial law because it could lead to the country’s demise.
READ: Duterte on martial law: Why should I do it? I don’t need it
“It will lead to the downfall of the country. Me, I don’t need to do it [declare martial law]. Ever,” Duterte then vowed.
Duterte again eased on the idea of martial law following a Pulse Asia survey that showed majority of Filipino respondents do not find the need to impose martial law to solve the country’s problems.
According to the survey conducted December 6 to 11, 2016, 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
In a December 22 interview 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. RAM/rga