1987 Constitution framers give opposing views on basis of  Martial Law

Two framers of the 1987 Constitution on Tuesday aired different views on the proposal in the Senate to include the phrase "imminent danger" as a basis for the declaration of martial law.

At a Senate hearing on measures to amend the charter, former Commission on Elections Chairman Christian Monsod explained that the phrase was "intentionally removed" from the 1987 Constitution, noting that the provision was present in the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions.

"In 1987, the term imminent danger was unnecessary in the case of invasion and dangerous in the case of rebellion. By then, we learned from the 14-year abuse of martial law power by an unchecked president in the pretense of 'imminent danger' of a rebellion, that we have a cultural tendency towards authoritarian rule," Monsod said.

"We may forgive but we should not forget," he added.

The former Comelec chairman also explained that the government will not be "helpless" in case of an invasion because there are provisions that allow Congress to declare war with special powers to the president.

"Declaring martial law in case of 'imminent danger' of invasion is not a preventive measure in case of invasion," he said.

Monsod further asserted that there are proper safeguards throughout the Constitution to deal with activities that might fall under the ‘imminent danger’ of invasion or rebellion.

“The removal of the phrase ‘imminent danger’ as regards invasion or rebellion is part of the balancing of powers of the President, Congress and the Supreme Court,” he said.

"Retaining the calling-out power of the armed forces to prevent or suppress invasion or rebellion including lawless violence, which was deemed enough in the case of 'imminent danger' of invasion or rebellion," he added.

Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, who is also part of the body that crafted the current constitution, said there is a need to "re-examine" incorporating the phrase in the charter anew "because of the advancing technology of warfare" which could also allow even anticipatory strikes in case of imminent attack.

"There may be a need to consider allowing the president to declare martial law in case of imminent danger of invasion or rebellion, considering that there are already safeguards in the present Constitution such as the power of the courts to review the factual basis of the declaration of martial law, if there is no really imminent danger the courts can reverse the declaration of the president," he pointed out.

He likewise noted that Congress can terminate the declaration of martial law within 60 days.

The proposal was raised by Senator Robin Padilla under Resolution of Both Houses No. 4.—LDF, GMA Integrated News