Proclamation of Martial Law: On September 21, 1972, President

Ferdinand E. Marcos placed the Philippines under Martial Law. The

declaration issued under Proclamation 1081 suspended the civil rights
and imposed military authority in the country. Marcos defended the
declaration stressing the need for extra powers to quell the rising wave
of violence allegedly caused by communists. The emergency rule was
also intended to eradicate the roots of rebellion and promote a rapid
trend for national development. The autocrat assured the country of the
legality of Martial Law emphasizing the need for control over civil
disobedience that displays lawlessness. Marcos explained citing the
provisions from the Philippine Constitution that Martial Law is a strategic
approach to legally defend the Constitution and protect the welfare of the Filipino people
from the dangerous threats posed by Muslim rebel groups and Christian vigilantes that
places national security at risk during the time. Marcos explained that martial law was not a
military takeover but was then the only option to resolve the country’s dilemma on rebellion
that stages national chaos threatening the peace and order of the country. The emergency
rule, according to Marcos’s plan, was to lead the country into what he calls a “New Society”.

Marcos used several events to justify martial law. Threat to the country’s security was
intensifying following the re-establishment of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP)
in 1968. Supporters of CPP’s military arm, the New People’s Army, also grew in numbers in
Tarlac and other parts of the country. The alleged attempt to the life of then Minister of
Defense Juan Ponce Enrile gave Marcos a window to declare Martial Law.
Marcos announced the emergency rule the day after the shooting incident. Marcos also
declared insurgency in the south caused by the clash between Muslims and Christians,
which Marcos considered as a threat to national security. The Muslims were defending
their ancestral land against the control of Christians who migrated in the area. The minority
group organized the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) in Malaysia and pushed for the
autonomy of Mindanao from the national government.

The move was initially supported by most Filipinos and was viewed by
some critics as a change that solved the massive corruption in the
country. Martial law ceased the clash between the executive and
legislative branches of the government and a bureaucracy characterized
by special interest. Marcos started to implement reforms on social and
political values that hindered effective modernization. To match the
accomplishments of its Asian neighbors, Marcos imposed the need for
self-sacrifice for the attainment of national welfare. His reforms targeted
his rivals within the elite depriving them of their power and patronage but did not affect
their supporters (US Library of Congress, Martial Law and the Aftermath).

Thirty-thousand opposition figures including Senator Benigno Aquino,

journalists, student and labor activists were detained at military compounds under the
President’s command (Proclamation 1081 and Martial Law). The army and the Philippine
Constabulary seized weapons and disbanded private armies controlled by prominent
politicians and other influential figures (Proclamation 1081 and Martial Law). Marcos took
control of the legislature and closed the Philippine Congress (Proclamation 1081 and Martial
Law). Numerous media outfits were either closed down or operated under tight control
(Proclamation 1081 and Martial Law). Marcos also allegedly funnelled millions of the
country’s money by placing some of his trusted supporters in strategic economic positions
to channel resources to him. Experts call this the “crony capitalism.”
 The deterioration of the political and economic condition in the
Philippines triggered the decline of support on Marcos’ plans. More and
more Filipinos took arms to dislodge the regime. Urban poor
communities in the country’s capital were organized by the Philippine
Ecumenical Council for Community and were soon conducting protest
masses and prayer rallies. These efforts including the exposure of
numerous human rights violations pushed Marcos to hold an election in
1978 and 1981 in an aim to stabilize the country’s chaotic condition.
Marcos, in both events, won the election; however, his extended term as
President of the Republic of the Philippines elicited an extensive
opposition against his regime. Social unrest reached its height after former Senator Benigno
Aquino was murdered. The incident sent thousands of Filipinos to the streets calling for
Marcos’ removal from post. Turning again to his electoral strategy, Marcos held a snap
election in 1986 but what he hoped will satisfy the masses only increased their
determination to end his rule that seated Corazon Aquino, widow of Benigno Aquino,
as President of the Philippines ousting Marcos from Malacañang Palace and ending the
twenty-one years of tyrant rule.

10 Incredibly Ironic Flaws You Can

Find In Our Constitution
Last Updated on 04/06/2019

According to law experts, a constitution is more than just a piece of paper. It is the
supreme law of the land, the manifestation of the people’s sovereignty. In other words, it
contains the rights, rules, and obligations which the people and their respective
governments have to follow and obey.

It is also generally held that there is no such thing as a perfect constitution, it being the
creation of men. The same goes for our 1987 Constitution; unintentional mistakes,
ambiguous or verbose sentences, lack of foresight, etc., have in one way or another
besmirched what was supposed to be something revolutionary, resulting in massive
unintended consequences which we ordinary Filipinos can feel up to now.

Last Updated on 04/06/2019

According to law experts, a constitution is more than just a piece of paper. It is the
supreme law of the land, the manifestation of the people’s sovereignty. In other words, it
contains the rights, rules, and obligations which the people and their respective
governments have to follow and obey.

It is also generally held that there is no such thing as a perfect constitution, it being the
creation of men. The same goes for our 1987 Constitution; unintentional mistakes,
ambiguous or verbose sentences, lack of foresight, etc., have in one way or another
besmirched what was supposed to be something revolutionary, resulting in massive
unintended consequences which we ordinary Filipinos can feel up to now.
Section 26, Article II of the Constitution says that the State “shall guarantee equal
access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be
defined by law,” yet the country has continued to be ruled by the elite few in modern
times. Why is that?

The answer lies in “as may be defined by law.” Specifically, there is no “enabling law”
that will allow this specific provision to be implemented. In fact, one such anti-dynasty
bill stayed stuck at the Congress’ committee level for almost three decades before it
ever reached sponsorship on May 2014. Even then, it has little chance of ever getting
passed in Congress since its members are made up of political dynasties.

The Supreme Court has twice upheld the view that the anti-dynasty provision of the
Constitution is essentially toothless without the enabling law. Without it, political
dynasties will never go away.

2. There is also no enabling law for a People’s Initiative.

Two specific provisions of the Constitution (Section 2, Article XVII and Section 32,
Article VI) clearly speak of the right of the people through an initiative to propose
amendments to the Constitution and of Congress to provide an enabling law so that
they may practice such a right.

Although an enabling law—RA 6735—does exist, the Supreme Court struck it down in
1997 for being inadequate. According to the high tribunal’s ruling, the law only pertains
to people’s initiative on the making of local and national laws and not on amendments to
the Constitution itself.

However, that ruling was far from unanimous. No less than former Chief Justice Artemio
Panganiban and Reynato Puno dissented and said the law was sufficient for a people’s
initiative. While the former ruling was not re-visited in another landmark case in 2007,
both ex-chief justices expressed hope that the Supreme Court would someday review
and overturn their decision.

3. Congress’ power to amend or revise the Constitution is vaguely

worded.
Perhaps one of the most controversial provisions one can find in the 1987 Constitution
concerns the mode by which Congress can amend or revise it. While Section 1, Article
XVII—which states that Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members, can
propose any amendment or revision—may sound simple enough, the provision has
sparked a firestorm of debates over its very vague wordings.
For one, it does not say whether Congress—composed of the House of
Representatives and the Senate—should vote either jointly or separately. According to
retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno, the members of the Constitutional Commission
could have experienced a “senior moment” when they formulated that provision under
the belief that the post-Marcos legislature would be “unicameral” (composed of only one
body, as was done during the late strongman’s Batasang Pambansa) instead of
“bicameral.”

Also, the provision does not specify whether both bodies should first convene as a
Constituent Assembly or simply remain as is when they propose amendments or
revisions. It’s no wonder that any move for Charter Change has been unsuccessful up
to now.

4. Repealing Martial Law is now a numbers game.

It cannot be denied that the 1987 Constitution was constructed in reaction to the
excesses of President Marcos’ regime. Under the new Constitution, the president’s
powers to declare martial law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus have been
severely clipped.

The new provisions—found in Section 18, Article VII—states that the president can
impose martial law for only sixty days at the most. He then must report to the Congress
within forty-eight hours after his proclamation the reason for such issuance. The House
of Representatives and the Senate, voting jointly, can either revoke or extend the
duration of martial law. Additionally, any citizen can question the proclamation before
the Supreme Court.

Also Read: 9 Philippine Government Agencies That Need To Reform Right Now

While the safeguards look good on paper, remember that the House outnumbers the
Senate by more than two hundred. In essence, the president can indefinitely extend
martial law as long as he has the numbers on his side. No less than Rene Sarmiento,
one of the members of the Constitutional Commission acknowledged that provisional
oversight. He explained that at the time of its formulation, he and his fellow members
did not see that someday the House of Representatives might be dominated by allies of
the president.

5. A president can still run for “re-election.”

As we’ve said, the 1987 Constitution placed severe limits on the presidency to ensure
no one ever abuses that position again. Still, there are always loopholes to find on such
restrictions, as was the case when the COMELEC allowed former President Erap
Estrada to run again in 2010.

Apparently, Estrada—the president from 1998 to 2001 before he resigned—convinced

the election body that Section 4, Article VII prohibited only “sitting” presidents, those
who finished their terms, and those who succeeded as such and served for more than
four years from running again. As he did not fall under any of the categories, he was
technically eligible to run again.

However, expert constitutionalist Father Joaquin Bernas said the provision explicitly
prohibited any kind of president from ever seeking re-election. According to him,
members of the Constitutional Commission debated whether to allow one immediate re-
election, re-election as long as it wasn’t immediate or no re-election absolutely.

In the end, the “no re-election” provision was chosen, hence the constitutional wording
“the President shall not be eligible for any re-election.”

6. The Commission On Human Rights is a lame duck age ncy.

A unique feature of the 1987 Constitution, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR)
was created in order to investigate abuses and ensure that human rights are upheld at
all times. Its various powers and functions are enumerated under Section 18, Article XIII
of the Constitution.

Noticeably absent, however, is the “prosecutory” power sorely needed by it. According
to a landmark Supreme Court case, the CHR can only perform the powers explicitly
given to it by the Constitution. It cannot, however, perform the functions of a court or
even that of a quasi-judicial body. Consequently, the restrictions have essentially made
the CHR a “lame duck” agency.

Although a bill has been filed by Senator Francis Escudero to expand its powers, it will take some time
before the CHR can be given its teeth.

7. The impeachment process is open to abuse.

SENATE STARTS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile administers the oath to the
22 Senators before officially starting the impeachment proceedings of Chief Justice Renato Corona. Part
of the oath states that the Senator-Judges “will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and
the laws of the Philippines.” (PRIB Photo by JOE ARAZAS)
While impeachment is the penultimate way we can remove erring government officials
including the president, the vice president, Supreme Court justices, the Ombudsman,
and members of the Constitutional Commissions from their posts, such a process is not
immune to abuse.

A landmark Supreme Court decision in 2003 which ruled that impeachment is initiated
the moment the verified complaint is filed and sent to the House of Representatives’
Committee on Justice regardless of its substance and whether the Committee accepts it
by majority vote had huge implications.

For one, it meant that anybody could file a poorly-written complaint just to trigger the
one-year prohibition on filing another impeachment complaint against the official in
question. Allegedly, former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s allies exploited this
little loophole when they continuously filed weak impeachment complaints against her to
pre-empt the real ones, thus ensuring she would remain in office for another year.

8. Some of the impeachable offenses are not well -defined.

Via asiancorrespondent.com

Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution enumerates the various offenses for which the
impeachable officials can be held liable: culpable violation of the Constitution, treason,
bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.

While the nature of the first four is straightforward enough, the last two (high crimes and
betrayal of public trust) are not as clearly defined. What constitutes high crimes and
betrayal of public trust?

For years, the Supreme Court declined to define betrayal of public trust and high crimes, labeling such as
political questions that must be left for the legislature to decide. Fortunately, a Supreme Court ruling in
2012 gave us an idea of what betrayal of public trust is.

Taking a cue from the members of the Constitutional Commission, the tribunal defined
the offense as acts which “may be less than criminal but must be attended by bad faith
and of such gravity and seriousness as the other grounds of impeachment.” Similarly,
high crimes should also be interpreted as those acts which place them in the same
league as the other impeachable offenses.

9. An “impeached” official can get a pardon.

Did former President Arroyo inadvertently open a new loophole when she granted her
predecessor Estrada a pardon?

Section 19, Article VII states that “except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise
provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations and
pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction of final judgment,” a wording
that has triggered debates.

Those who supported Estrada’s pardon—including Father Bernas—said he was eligible

for a pardon since his impeachment never ended in a final conviction and because what
was being pardoned was his conviction for plunder before the Sandiganbayan. On the
other hand, those who opposed the pardon reasoned that the “conviction by final
judgment” clause excludes cases of impeachment. Whatever the case, it looks like
Estrada’s pardon has set the precedent.

10. The Judiciary is not as “independent” as we think.

Via Wikimedia Commons

As the third co-equal branch of government, the judiciary is tasked with the important
role of settling cases and interpreting the law. As such, it is supposed to be free and
independent of the whims of the executive and the legislative branch.

However, the judiciary has an apparent Achilles heel in the form of judicial appointment,
a power exercised by the president. Specifically, it is the latter’s prerogative to select
and reject the appointments of the judges and justices of the country.

Using such a wide-ranging power, the president can return the shortlist of nominees to
the judiciary handed to him by the Judicial and Bar Council. He can order the Secretary
of Justice and the congressional member of the Council to nominate his preferred
candidate. As to the Supreme Court, he can appoint as Chief Justice someone who has
never even served in the high tribunal.

Lastly, the president can also make his own committees to investigate the nominees
and candidates before and after they have been screened by the JBC, an action which
has resulted in the propagation of the padrino (patronage) system.