3.

Justify their action on putting the country/some parts of the country under
Martial Law.

All of the three proclamations had one thing in common, they were done because
there is social unrest. In the proclamation of Marcos in 1935, radical leftists are

terrorizing the peacefulness of the country. This includes the feared New People's
Army, a group of communist militants that wants to seek governmental reform. Also
during this time, there were lots of events that indicates that rebels were
increasing their numbers and their presence as time goes by. In a period of 6
months,
the New People's Army increased their numbers two-fold.
In the Proclamation of Arroyo, Proclamation 1959 was issued because of a state of
emergency in the province of Maguindanao. This time it was the Moro Islamic
Liberation Front. Maguindanao's local judicial system and its government mechanisms
are not functioning due to this group. Also they are endangering public safety.
Finally, the Proclamation 216 by President Duterte in 2016 was issued to put the
whole of Mindanao under the rule of martial law. This time, the rebel forces was a
terrorist group called the Maute Terrorist Group. This group attacked a military
outpost and freed their detained members. They also took control over a hospital in

Marawi, and they raised the flag of ISIS in different areas, showing that they are
attempting to remove from the allegiance to the Philippine Government.

This three cases had a terrorist group or a rebel group that is resulting to social
unrest. Since the judicial system of the certain area cannot handle the terrorist
attacks, it may be fine to leave the power to the military. With this, they can put
these terrorists under arrest so they could weaken the enemy forces by decreasing
their numbers. This can possibly work as a last resort. After everything is done,
and if there is still social unrest due to terror inflicted, then martial law can
have an impact to the situation.

5. From your own point of view, if worse comes to worst, is it necessary to put a
country under Martial Law?

No, martial law includes the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. The writ of
habeas corpus indicates that a person may be granted a chance to face a judge and
defend him or herself from conviction. Martial law removes this, as the power is
within the military forces. They are tasked to capture and eliminate rebel and
terrorist forces from the country to alleviate the social terror inflicted and
bring back peace. Yet, their task is rightful, the process can be problematic. As
the
power to detain and question rests in the hands of the militia, people who are
wrongfully convicted does not have the ability to speak for themselves and their
innocence.

The ability to defend oneself from conviction and a good judicial system is a part
of a peaceful community. But if one removes one or both of this, then there will be
injustice causing more people to hate and rebel against the government for putting
them in that situation.