By: Ristel Mae B. Tagudando[1]
I. CONSTITUTION ON CONGRESS POWER TO EXTEND MARTIAL LAW
The Congress has the power, granted by the 1987 to shorten or extend the President’s proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. This supported by the pertinent part in Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which states that the Congress may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which 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.
II. CONGRESSIONAL CHECK
The President requested the Congress to extend the effectivity of Proclamation No. 216, which declares a state of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao for a period not exceeding sixty (60) days, to address the rebellion mounted by members of the Maute Group and Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG).
Both the Senate and the House of Representatives were asked by the President to further extend the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao for one year, or for such period as the Congress may determine. In a joint session, the Senate and the House of Representatives, adopted the resolution further extending the period of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao for one year.
The Court ruled that the Congress has the power to extend and determine the period of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The Congressional check on the President’s martial law and suspension power consists of first, the power to review the President’s proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and to revoke such proclamation or suspension. Such review is “automatic in the sense that it may be activated by Congress itself at any time after the proclamation or suspension is made.” The Congress’ decision to revoke the proclamation or suspension[2] and cannot be set aside by the President. Second, the power to approve any extension of the proclamation or suspension, upon the President’s initiative, for such period as it may determine, if the invasion or rebellion persists and public safety requires it.
Such extension of the proclamation or suspension, when approved by the Congress, the becomes a “joint executive and legislative act” or a “collective judgment” between the President and the Congress.
III. GRANTED TO TOLL ABUSE OF COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF’S ARMED FORCES
The Congress was granted the power to shorten or extend the President’s proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the 1987 Constitution, particularly expressed on Section 18, Article VII. Unlike under the 1935[3] and 1973[4] Constitutions, the Congress had no power to review or limit the Executive’s exercise of the authority to declare martial law or to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
Due to the country’s martial law experience under the Marcos regime, such power was subsequently established in the 1987 Constitution as part of a system of checks and balance designed to forestall any potential abuse of an extraordinary power lodged in the President as Commander-in- Chief of the country’s armed forces.
IV. MORE REASONABLE AND WEIGHED
The Philippines, at present, following the global order in pursuit of both economic security and security of the State, is still based on several myths, one of is that such can mainly be pursued through military means, which explains the astronomical budgets allocated to it. [5] As a result, incidentally have also contributed to a significant number of abuses by the uniformed, such as during Marcos regime, and currently, more so under Duterte’s administration. [6]
This recent case shall render a cap on the possible abuses of the power vested on the President as regards the armed forces as the Congress has the review the President’s proclamation and to approve any extension beforehand.
[1] UST Faculty of Civil Law, 2G, UST Law Review Understudy
[2] Citing Lagman v. Medialdea, supra note 18
[3] Section 10, Article VII (Executive Department) of the 1935 Constitution states: “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 privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or place the Philippines or any part thereof under Martial Law.”
[4] Section 12, Article IX (The Prime Minister and the Cabinet) of the 1973 Constitution reads: “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.”
[5] Nyamilepedia. (2020, August 29). Evolving Perspectives on Human Rights,The Shifting Global Paradigm . Retrieved November 30, 2020, from https://www.nyamile.com/2020/08/29/evolving-perspectives-on-human-rightsthe-shifting-global-paradigm/
[6] Abusive Philippine ‘Drug War’ Gets Military Reinforcements. (2020, October 28). Retrieved November 30, 2020, from https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/01/abusive-philippine-drug-war-gets-military-reinforcements
Tales and Renaissance 