Last week, the Maute Group—a local terrorist organization claiming to have ties with ISIS—took over

Marawi City, leading to firefights with the Philippine military, and sadly, killing 21 people, and wounding
another 31.

President Duterte declared martial law and ordered the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus over all
of Mindanao. Media quoted him as saying, “Martial law is martial law…It could not be any different from
what President Marcos did.”

In making the comparison, President Duterte was undoubtedly thinking about the strictness and
discipline the armed services exercised in Sept 1972; he’s expecting the same standard the PNP and the
AFP would observe during martial rule in Mindanao. There are, however, key differences with the martial
law President Marcos declared on September 21, 1972.

For one, President Marcos declared martial law over the entire Philippines via Proclamation No. 1081,
series of 1972. Such proclamation falls under the 1935 Constitution which stated that the President, as
the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines, may suspend the privileges of the writ of
habeas corpus or place any part of the Philippines under martial law, “to prevent or suppress lawless
violence, invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or imminent danger thereof, when the public safety
requires it.”

In contrast, President Duterte issued his declaration of martial law over Mindanao (Proclamation No.
216, series of 2017) under the 1987 Constitution, which limits the President’s powers to put any part of
the Philippines under martial law and suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, only during
cases “of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.”

Whereas the 1935 Constitution placed no restriction on President Marcos’ declaration, President
Duterte’s, under the 1987 Constitution, is subject to various checks and balances.

For one, the 1987 Constitution requires that within 48 hours from proclamation, the President should
submit a report to Congress, either in person or in writing. Congress then has the right, voting jointly, by
a vote of at least a majority of all its members, to revoke the proclamation or extend its validity beyond
the 60-day limit, set in the Constitution.
Should any citizen question the validity of the proclamation, the Supreme Court may review the factual
basis of the proclamation of martial law and decide whether it is sufficient or not. The 1987 Constitution
affirms that martial rule does not mean the courts or the legislative bodies cease to operate, or that the
civil rights of citizens are suspended. Even in times of rebellion or invasion, the Constitution should still
be upheld.

In fact, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus shall only apply to those charged with rebellion or
invasion. And those arrested under the suspension of the writ must be charged within three days or be
released.

A clear change between the 1935 and 1987 Constitutions was the deletion of the phrase, “…or imminent
danger thereof,” from the provision listing the conditions upon which martial law can be declared.

Not only does the 1987 Constitution limit the reasons the President can declare martial law, it takes
away any arbitrariness to how those conditions can be interpreted or determined. In other words, only
when it has been unequivocally established that the country is being invaded or that a rebellion taking
place can martial law be legally proclaimed.

None of the aforementioned limits existed in the 1935 Constitution.