From the Standpoint of Constitution:

A Comparative Analysis between Declaration of Martial Law by Marcos and Duterte

Generally, Martial law is referred as the imposition of a leader, which is usually the

highest ranked military officer, head of government like President, or military governor. This

means that the leader has the power to remove or terminate all the powers of legislative,

executive and judicial branches of government. Declaration of Martial law can either be

temporary or permanent depending on the decisive action by the leader.

Under Section 18 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, the President has the power to

place the entire country, or any part of it, under Martial law, when there is invasion of the

Philippines, or when there is rebellion taking place. The constitution also explicitly provides that

when martial law is resorted to, “public safety” must demand it, for a period not exceeding sixty

day. Martial law therefore, is to be invoked in those cases where the very existence of the state is

threatened. It is premised, upon the principle that the state has a right to defend itself, and rests

on the propositions that every state possesses the power of self-preservation. Martial law has

been characterized as the public right of self-defense against a danger to the order or the

existence of the state. Moreover ,the power of the President to declare Martial law is the

hemmed about with restrictions and limitations ,there are conditions which must be met before it

can be imposed .The power given to the President only when those condition of actual invasion

or rebellion .The President can only impose Martial law for period up to sixty days .Martial law

can only be extend beyond sixty days by the joint vote of congress.

Martial law is the public of necessity. Necessity calls it forth, necessity justifies its

exercise, and necessity measures the extent and degree to which it may be employed. That
necessity is no formal, artificial, legalistic concept but an actual and factual one.it is the necessity

of taking action to safeguard the state against insurrection, not disorder, or public calamity. What

constitutes necessity is a question of fact in each case.

Martial law is the public right of self defense against a danger threatening the order or

existence of the state. When the ordinary civil authorities-the police-are unable to resist or

subdue a disturbance. The extent of military force used depends, in each instance, upon the

extent of the disturbance. The question now, Is Martial law a necessity for the existence of state,

Is there an actual rebellion, and does public safety require Martial law?

The constitution imposes two conditions for martial law: there should be actual rebellion, and

public necessity requires it.

The first condition in Actual Rebellion

The Penal Code defines the crime of rebellion as “Rising publicly and taking arms

against the government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or

its laws, the territory of the Philippines or any part thereof, or any body or land, naval of their

powers and prerogatives. Furthermore, rebellion is a political offense, not a common crime. The

essence of rebellion is ideological motivation, meaning the advocacy that the existing

government should be destroyed, removing citizen allegiance. Where there is no ideological

motivation, there is no rebellion as explained by (1995 Supreme court decision 4.)

By its very nature rebellion essentially a crime of masses or multitudes involving crowd

action which cannot be confined a priori within a predetermined bound. If no political motive

established and proved, the accused should be convicted to the common crime not rebellion. In

cases of rebellion, motive relates to the act, and mere membership in an organization dedicated
to the furtherance of a political end.it is not enough that over acts of rebellion are proven both

purpose and overt acts are essential components of the crime

The second condition: Public safety requires it

The constitution does not define public safety, although it also uses this term to restrict

the right to travel. In the light of this lacuna in the law. The term public refers to the people of

nation or community as a whole. But the crimes committed by warlord against each other are

basically threats to the safety only of their respective camps. what constitute are not threat to the

public safety but acts of terrorism, defined by law as the commission of a major cime, thereby

sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the

populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.

The Proclamation N0.1959, unlike its omission to use the word ‘rebellion’ does use the term

“public safety”

Martial Law Declaration under Marcos

The declaration of Martial Law of the late President Ferdinand Marcos has been known

as one of the dark eras of our country and up until now its tales of horrors and terrors still haunts

us in the present time. On September 22, 1972, Marcos declared Martial Law over the entire

Philippines via Proclamation No. 1081, series of 1972. The proclamation falls under the 1935

Constitution which provides 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 General Order No. 1, signed September 22, 1972, Marcos declared:

Now, therefore, I, Ferdinand E. Marcos, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers

vested in me by the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the

Philippines, do hereby proclaim that I shall govern the nation and direct the operation of the

entire Government, including all its agencies and instrumentalities, in my capacity and shall

exercise all the powers and prerogatives appurtenant and incident to my position as such

Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

Former President Marcos, by establishing Martial Law, undertook to assume legislative

powers in addition to his regular powers as Chief Executive. He consolidated in his own person,

the powers of the Presidency and the powers of Congress. Such was the theory underlying the

streams of decrees, executive orders, executive proclamations, letters of instructions and the like,

that he released upon the nation (Tuason v Register of Deeds 1998 p-6).

Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. (Fr. Bernas), a member of the Constitutional Commission that

drafted the 1987 Constitution, explained:

“The Commander-in-Chief provisions of the 1935 Constitution had enabled President

Ferdinand Marcos to impose authoritarian rule on the Philippines from 1972 to 1986. Supreme

Court decisions during that period upholding the actions taken by Mr. Marcos made

authoritarian rule part of Philippine constitutional jurisprudence.” (Medialdea v Lagman, 2017

p-4).

By taking control over the entire government after his declaration of Martial Law,

Marcos ruled the country in a position of absolute power over the laws of the land, disregarding
the system of check and balances among the branches of governments. He, himself appointed

every provincial governor, city mayor, and municipal mayor in the country and throughout his

term, he issued 1941 presidential decrees, 1331 letters of instruction, and 896 executive orders.

Martial Law Declaration under Duterte

On May 23,2017, President Rodrigo Duterte issued proclamation no.216 which placed

the entire island of Mindanao under martial law due to rampant lawlessness in Mindanao

particularly in Marawi City, in accordance with section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.

President Rodrigo Duterte declared Martial law in the entire Mindanao island amid the ongoing

clashes between government troops and Maute group terrorist in Marawi City. Martial law was

in place for a maximum of 60days, as stipulated in the constitution on the grounds of resistance

and rebellion.

The Supreme court ruled the Martial law as valid for there were sufficient factual bases

for the proclamation of Martial law on the basis that there were (1) actual rebellion (2) public

safety requires it, and (3) probable cause for the President to believe that there is actual rebellion

or invasion. That ,on July 22,2017.Duterte gets congressional approval to extend it until

December 31,2017, therefore President Rodrigo Duterte has the power to carry out martial law

until the end of the year 2017,aiming to solve the crisis in Marawi City where government forces

and the Maute terror group continue to fight and also the military wants to use the full martial

law period to quell threats in other parts of the region. The Supreme Court found that there were

sufficient factual basis in Proclamation 216 as providing the actual rebellion exists:

Recommendation:
1. The Maute Group and other lawless groups openly attempting to remove from the allegiance

of the Government this part of Mindanao, starting with the City of Marawi and deprive the Chief

Executive of his powers and prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land and maintain public

with the clear intention to established an Islamic state knows as DEASH Wilayat or province

covering the entire Mindanao.

2. Cutting of vital lines of transportation and power, recruitment of young Muslim to further

expand their ranks and armed consolidation of their members throughout Marawi, dissemination

of segment of the city population who resist;brazen of DAEZH flags:

3. Preventing BJMP from performing their functions, attack and occupation of several hospitals,

medical services, bridge and road blockades effectively depriving the government of its ability to

deliver basic services, hampering troop reinforcement for restoration of peace and order and

hindering the government of both civilians and government personnel to and from the City.

In this light, the declaration and extension of Martial law is essential to the overall peace

and stability. The rebellion in Marawi continues to persist and to stop the spread of the evil

ideology of terrorism and free the people of Mindanao from tyranny of lawlessness and violent

extremism. The declaration of Martial law in Mindanao under Duterte administration is the key

to end the Marawi crisis and neutralize the Maute group and restore peace and order.

Analysis

President Rodrigo Duterte placed Mindanao under martial law on May 23, 2017 through

Proclamation No 216, which also suspends the privilege of writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao. It

is effective for 60 days. With the request of extension by the President, martial law declaration in
Mindanao would be for a total of over two and a half years from May 23, 2017, to December 31,

2019.

In contrast, Marcos’ martial law did not only cover Mindanao but all of the Philippines

through Presidential Decree 1081 signed on Sept 21, 1972 which lasted about 10 years through

Proclamation No. 2045 signed on Jan 17, 1981.

1935 and 1987 Constitution

Such proclamations fall under our 1935 and 1987 Constitutions. Both our 1935 and 1987

Constitutions states that the President, being 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.

However, under the 1987 Constitution, the powers of the President in martial law

declaration 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. The 1935 Constitution placed no such restrictions on President Marcos’

declaration.

The 1987 Constitution provides that even under the martial rule it 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. Even 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. In contrast, none of these limits existed in the 1935 Constitution.

Basis for Martial Law

Duterte declared martial law following the attack of the Islamic State-affiliated Maute

terrorist group in Marawi City. While Marcos declared martial law in the Philippines due to the

communist rebellion.

According to them they have not seen indiscriminate arrests against those against the

government unlike during the Marcos’ time military abuses and indiscriminate arrests not just in

Mindanao but all other places in the Philippines. In Duterte’s declaration of Martial Law, the

different branches of the government are still functioning, which shows the Constitution was not

set aside. In Marcos’ time, on the other hand, there were acts of unconstitutionality that the

legislative and Supreme Court were blinded or have no powers to do what needs to be done.

Right after Marcos declared martial law, the dictator also closed down privately-owned

newspapers and television and radio stations, allowing only state-owned organisations to

disseminate information.

So far, under Duterte’s martial law, there has been no infringement on freedom of the

press, as no privately-owned media outlet has been closed from operation.

The horrors of the decade-long martial law rule under Marcos have undoubtedly continue

to haunt the thousands who were tortured and subjected to abuse by his regime. But for many in

Mindanao today, Duterte is no reincarnation of the dictator.

feared or even hated by the people of Mindanao.

The ultimate question is our constitution provides enough restrictions to limit the abuse

of president’s powers in declaring martial law.

Conclusion
 Bibliography:

1.Constitution ,article 7,Section 18

2.Federich B.Weiner,a practical Manual of Martial law 16-17 (1940)

3.IBP VS Zamora,331 SCRA 81 (2000)

4.https/lawerphilippines.org/2015/10/13 martial- law-under-the 1987 constituition.

5..Michael Noone ,Jr.Oxford “Martial Law in the Oxford Companion University Press.)

6.Quisumbing ,Leo .Philippine law Journal, VOL 60,1985: Constitutional Control of Electoral Process and Political Parties.

7.Santos,Guillermo (1970).Martial law:Nature ,Principles and Administration