Martial Law in Maguindanao: What shall we do?

Proclamation 1959 was the third time Martial law was availed of by government as an emergency measure.

The first time was when President Jose P. Laurel, the government caretaker, declared martial rule when foreign invaders entered Manila. The Laurel proclamation was deemed judicious because the country was then under invasion.

The second was the classic Proclamation 1081 on September 21, 1972 by former president Ferdinand Edralin Marcos. The country was not under invasion; rather there was an ensuing rebellion. Under the 1945 Constitution, there were only two instances when Martial law can be declared: invasion, rebellion or insurrection. “ Lawless violence“, this term in the Philippine Constitution describes the condition caused by either invasion or rebellion, but not as an independent condition by itself. There may be lawless violence but the answer is not Martial law but the application of the full force of the law.


In Proclamation 1081, Marcos was actually right in the application of Martial law. There was an existing rebellion. Jose Maria Sison already founded the Communist Party of the Philippines and has since created rebel camps and assassination squads as early as 1970. Student protests were all over. With this rebellion, lawless violence ensued and even affected the capital. Hence, the President had the right to call out the Armed Forces to quell the rebellion.

Remember that these two instances–the Laurel and Marcos proclamations—there were two existing conditions–the country was invaded by a foreign power (Laurel) while there was domestic instability caused by a Communist rebellion (Marcos).


Now, let’s see if this Proclamation 1959 of Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo satisfies the requisites as provided by the 1987 Constitution for the declaration of Martial law.

In the 1987 Constitution, there are actually three conditions stated: invasion, rebellion or coup d’etat. Clearly, the Constitution meant for these conditions to be existing prior to a declaration. Martial rule, as a concept, was never meant to be used as either a deterrent nor as a pre-emptive measure. The framers of the Constitution specifically used the word “suppress” to express the real intention of Section 18, Article 7 of the Constitution.


Now, what causes confusion in the interpretation of this provision in the 1987 Constitution?


It is the inclusion of the word “prevent” in the first sentence that gives every President the legal basis for calling out the Armed Forces even if the threat is just “imminent”. Look at how Section 18 was framed:

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 (include coup d’etat)

It is clear that the President has the power to call out the armed forces to address these four conditions. But, is this the paragraph that justifies martial law? No. The second sentence of the same provision is clearly what the Framers actually intended as a condition for the proclamation of martial law.

“…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.”

Clearly, there are only TWO conditions, which must exist, BEFORE the President can actually declare martial law—invasion or rebellion.

In the case of Maguindanao, Proclamation 1959 was issued at a time when the military has already neutralized members of the Ampatuan family, believed to be the masterminds behind the brutal massacre. Troops were already in the area and has surrounded the compound of the warlord. Arms were already seized.

In fact, previous press statements of Malacanang issued shortly after the massacre indicates that the situation has been placed under control. When Mrs. Arroyo placed three provinces believed to be under the control of the Ampatuans under the State of Emergency proclamation, the situation in the area normalized and there was no indication that a rebellion was existing nor was there a threat even, of rebellion.


Given that there was no factual basis for the declaration of martial law, what should Congress do at this point?


I do not agree with Speaker Prospero Nograles Jr. assertion that the sentence in Section 18 was just discretionary, not directory. Look at how this sentence was framed:

“…Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members, in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President.”

Two things: President is MANDATED by the Constitution to report to Congress and second, Congress has to CONVENE itself either in regular or SPECIAL SESSION. IN FACT, the Constitution DIRECTS CONGRESS TO IMMEDIATELY CONVENE WITHIN TWENTY FOUR HOURS FOLLOWING THE PROCLAMATION OR SUSPENSION..WITHOUT NEED OF A CALL.


These provisions are DIRECTORY or MANDATORY, not subject to the whims or caprices of the Speaker or of that of the Senate President.


The question really is—when is the proper time for Congress to convene?


If Congress is in session, they must convene within forty eight hours. In the case of Maguindanao, they have to do it as early as Tuesday morning, since the proclamation took effect 7 o’clock in the morning of December 4, which fell on a Saturday. If they are NOT in session, they should have called it by TODAY, Sunday, December 5.


* Note: In computing for a period, the first day is excluded and the last day included. In Article 13 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, it is said, and to wit:

Art. 13. When the law speaks of years, months, days or nights, it shall be understood that years are of three hundred sixty five days each; months, of thirty days; days, of twenty-foiur houses; and nights, from sunset to sunrise.


If months are designated by their name, they shall be computed by the number of days which they respectively have.


In computing a period, the first day shall be excluded and the last day included.

Now, was there legal basis for what Senator Juan Ponce-Enrile said that when it meant 48 hours, that means that it should be working hours, meaning, government offices must be OPEN before he, as Senate President, can CALL and CONVENE the Senate? By all means, NO.


Section 18 of Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution is a directory provision and we are talking here of a suspension of rights and privileges extended to citizens living in a democracy. Are we to wait for government offices to open BEFORE ENRILE calls for his fellow Senators to convene? The Constitution is clear—if not in session, convene even without a call. If they are in session, convene within forty eight hours. Forty eight hours mean that it starts at 7 o-clock in the morning and ends at 7AM in the morning of Tuesday.