Is the declaration of martial law in Mindanao correct? Why yes? Why no?

Back in the days of the Marcos administration, expectations were so high when the former
president declared Martial Law. Many people believed that our country was prepared to move
on to a new era – a new beginning for the president’s New Society. Initially sought to curb violent
crimes and stop rebels from sowing chaos and disorder in the country, major abuses started to
take place escalating into a nightmare that many of us, Filipinos, would like to forget. Because of
this, Martial Law will always have a negative connotation in our culture. Filipinos will always
associate it with something that is horrible, shocking and terrible.
In the present context, the clash between the government troops and Maute group terrorists in
Marawi City, where terrorists attempted to lay siege following a botched military operation on
May 23 prompted President Rodrigo Duterte to declare martial law in Mindanao, eliciting fears
that history will repeat itself.
According to Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution: ‘In case of invasion or rebellion,
when the public safety requires it, the president may, for a period not exceeding sixty days,
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof
under martial law’.
Is the declaration of Martial Law in Mindanao correct? Is it really necessary or is the president’s
move just an overreaction?
Yes. I think it is CORRECT, necessary and not just a spontaneous decision to contemplate. In his
official report to Congress to justify Proclamation No. 216, his martial law declaration, the
president described that he has sufficient factual basis that the mayhems committed by the
Maute group are attempts to remove Mindanao, starting with Marawi City, from its allegiance to
the government and preventing the president from enforcing laws to uphold safety and public
order. The atrocities displayed by the Maute terrorists and their act of hoisting the black flag of
ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) effectively constitute rebellion. The magnitude and scope of
the chaos executed by the local rebel group compel the proclamation of martial law and
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus to ensure public safety.
In comparison with the settings of the Marcos Regime and Arroyo’s declaration due to the
Maguindanao Massacre, the recent declaration of Martial Law in this circumstance is necessary
for the protection of our countrymen in Marawi and other neighboring cities in Mindanao. Due
to the aftermath of the atrocities in Marawi City, I think declaring Martial Law is the most
appropriate thing to do. In this case, the benefit outweighs the risk.
However, several groups are probing the president’s move, saying that it was an overreaction
that is based on a mere threat that could lead to human rights violations by the military due to
the suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus. The writ of habeas corpus requires a person
under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court, especially to secure the person’s release
unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention. The suspension led to countless human
rights violations in the Marcos regime. It might happen again and we might experience the same
horrors of the past.
In addition, Congressman Edcel Lagman stated that there is “no sufficient factual basis” on the
declaration of martial law and that many of the facts offered are false, inaccurate, and contrived.
So it could also be justified that declaring Martial Law is INCORRECT as shown in our history. The
declaration will ignite fear among our countrymen and history might repeat itself.
Above all this, President Duterte might be considered as a copycat for this move but it might be
what is best for our country. The past of an awful Martial Law may continue to haunt the present.
But the truth is, sometimes we need to learn from our mistakes and face our fears for the welfare
of our country.