No Need for Martial Law in Basilan

A call by Basilan Catholic Bishop Martin Jumoad for the imposition of martial law in the aftermath of the deadly bombing which killed 15 persons should not even be considered since its declaration is not necessary in going after the culprits.

In the case of the Maguindanao massacre where members of the Ampatuan clan were apprehended, the declaration was made in order to facilitate the arrest of the suspects even without warrants. But eventually, it proved to be a faulty decision since the court dismissed the rebellion case for lack of evidence. It turned out that there was no basis for the declaration since there was no rebellion as defined under the law.

With regard to the Basilan bombing, the suspected culprit is the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), a known terrorist organization which has been involved in terror activities like kidnappings and bombings. The Human Security Act, which provides for wiretap surveillance and warrantless arrests, makes it unnecessary to impose military rule because the declaration of martial law is only justified if rebellion or invasion is present.

In the case of the Basilan bombing, there is no invasion and the acts of the ASG should not be considered rebellion. It would negate their tag as a terrorist organization and considering them as rebels would only make them qualify for amnesty some time in the future. We should not fall into the temptation of copying the government’s response to the Maguindanao massacre declaring martial law just so that the suspects will be apprehended. As we have seen with the Ampatuans, their rebellion case was dismissed because it was found by the court that there was no rebellion.

Coming so close to the elections, declaration of martial for convenience will only cause unwanted anxiety among the people who will surely suspect that martial law will be used for the administration’s political advantage. It is disturbing to hear Secretary Norberto Gonzales say that they are studying the martial law option. Malacañang’s statement that it is not considering martial law is also not reassuring, since days before the declaration of martial law in Maguinanao was also preceded by statements from high government officials that military rule was not necessary.

Rather than declare martial law, the Human Security Act, also known as the Anti-Terror Law, should be used against the perpetrators of the bombing. It is a law that is specifically meant to address acts of terrorism by terrorists and terrorist organizations and it is a law that is already in force.

The Human Security Act will also be applicable to the situation if the government’s suspicion is true that the ASG is being used as a private armed group by politicians. Those who employ the ASG may be considered as an accomplice or accessory to terrorism and be charged accordingly using the HSA. The law even has provisions for probing the bank accounts of suspects so if there are politicians suspected to be involved in the actions of the ASG, their finances can even be looked into.

While I share the desire of the people of Basilan to bring the bombers to justice, I do not agree to the declaration of martial law as the solution. It will only further tarnish the image of the country in the international community; it is the inappropriate measure and will result in the failure to convict the suspects; it is untimely in the face of the coming elections and it is only a tool of last resort.

Maguindanao Martial Law--Is There an Invasion or Rebellion?

The 1987 Constitution provides for Presidential powers to declare martial law:

“ Article VII, Section 18 - The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he 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.”

The president is then mandated to submit a report to the Congress which may revoke the declaration or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

In the declaration of martial law in Maguindanao, the basis of the declaration cannot be helped but be questioned. As provided for in the Constitution, the president may declaration of martial law only in the case of invasion or rebellion.

Under the said provision, where does the Maguindanao situation fall under? Invasion? By who? Is it a rebellion? Is the provincial government of Maguindanao led by the Ampatuans taking up arms against the government?

While I would like to support government initiatives which will ensure the maintenance of law and order in Maguindano following the Ampatuan Massacre, I do not see the reasons that would justify a declaration of martial law as prescribed in the Constitution. Considering the current atmosphere of peace and order, there is not even enough reasons to call out the Armed Forces because there is no lawless violence going on in Maguindanao.

The Congress should reject this declaration because it has no firm basis to stand on and it will open up the avenue for those who have previously expressed their proposal for a no-elections scenario to pursue their plans. If martial law is allowed to go on in Maguindanao, trouble can easily be created in other parts of the country and the expansion of the coverage of martial law can immediately be justified.

With elections just around the corner, and recent talks of No-El scenarios still ringing in our ears, the imposition of Martial Law in Maguindanao under circumstances which do not require it should really be met with skepticism.