Enrile: Declaration of martial law should be allowed even if danger only imminent

Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile believes that the 1987 Constitution should be set aside including its provisions on the basis for the declaration of martial law.

According to Mav Gonzales' report on "24 Oras", the declaration of martial law should be allowed even if the danger was only imminent as provided for under the 1935 and 1973 constitutions.

“'Yang constitution na yan ginulo 'yung provision ng 1935 Constitution, ginulo yung provision ng 1973 Constitution at nilabo-labo yung provision ng 1987 Constitution na hanggang ngayon nagpapahirap sa ating bansa," Enrile told a Senate committee on Wednesday.

“Kung anu-anong provision to weaken the government of the Republic of the Philippines that should protect the people and enhanced and advanced the goal of the Communist Party of the Philippines, the New People’s Army and the NDF,” he added.

Enrile pointed out the phrase “imminent danger” was one of the grounds for a president to declare martial law based on the 1935 and 1973 Constitution. This phrase was excluded in the 1987 Constitution.

“Kung nandyan na 'yung giyera, binabaril na 'yung mga  sundalo natin at mga pulis, saka lang ako magdeklara ng martial law? Hindi pwede yun, eh," Enrile said.

The 1987 Constitution was created after the EDSA People Power Revolution, while the 1973 Constitution  was created after the declaration of Martial Law.

Meanwhile, the 1935 Constitution was established while the Philippines was under the rule of the Americans.

“Sa akin, ang pinakamagandang saligang batas ng Pilipinas ay yung 1935 Constitution. Maigsi, brief, simple, easy to understand. Pangalawa, yung 1973 Constitution may katangian po yun dahil sa tinatawag na continuity of policies,” Enrile said.

Under the 1987 Constitution, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to Congress within 48 hours from the declaration of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

The Congress may vote if this will be approved or revoke such proclamation or suspension.

Any citizen may also question the declaration of martial law before the Supreme Court, and the High Court must promulgate its decision within thirty days from its filing.

Enrile said the power of the President was “absolute” during that time and could not be questioned by the Supreme Court.

“Ginulo nila martial law provision. Noong dineklara namin yung martial law, simple lang. The Supreme Court cannot interfere, nobody cannot interfere. The power of the President was absolute,” Enrile said.

Prevent repeat of situation

Retired Supreme Court Associate justice Adolfo Azcuna, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, said the amendment of the constitution was clear and went through consultation with the public.

According to Lei Alviz’s report on “24 Oras”, Azcuna said the objective was to private checks and balances on the power of the President.

“Dahil sa tingin ng mga framers natin noon kasi galing lang tayo sa dictatorship na na-overthrown, huwag na sana maulit 'yung situation where one person without being checked by anybody declare total power and 'yun ang reason for that—to prevent repetition of autocracy being imposed,” Azcuna said.

“Ang binago, hindi naman siguro masyadong gulo 'yun kasi maliwanag naman ang pagbago namin at may consultation tayo sa mga citizens natin, hindi na pwede yung imminent danger kung hindi actual invasion or rebellion tapos yung declaration ng martial law ng presidente should be in subject to some checks and balance," he added.

"And then the factual basis kung talagang meron bang invasion o rebellion can be examined by the Supreme Court, yun essentially ang safeguards na pinopost namin,” Azcuna said.

Azcuna agreed with Enrile that the “imminent danger” should be included as one of the basis of martial law. However, he said the checks and balances of the Congress and Supreme Court must remain.

“Ang point naman na requiring it to be actual invasion is baka gawing dahilan lang at wala namang invasion sasabihin merong imminent. Siguro we can compromise by saying that pwede siya magdeclare kahit imminent but again the factual basis of that findings can be examine both by Congress and by the Supreme Court,” Azcuna said. —Richa Allyssa Noriega/NB, GMA News