Massive martial law powers

THE PRESIDENT will be given massive martial law powers under the Federal Constitution proposed by the Consultative Committee (Concom). That these powers could be used against those who merely disagree with the administration is a legitimate concern.

The Concom-proposed Constitution has amended the martial law provisions in the 1987 Constitution by allowing the President to declare martial law on the new ground of “lawless violence.”  Under this Federal Constitution, the President can call the ongoing wave of killings of mayors, priests, lawyers, the media as well as suspected drug addicts “lawless violence” and declare martial law nationwide using this ground.

This attempt to expand the President’s martial law powers is very dangerous considering that he is intolerant of dissent and has long been threatening to declare martial law or establish a revolutionary government as his solution to the country’s problem.

The proposed Constitution devoted a whole new article on “National Security and Public Order” under Article XX.  It has granted the President new powers to situations which he deems as emergency namely, (1) the power to intervene in case a region fails to comply with its obligation under the Constitution as to threaten “the economy” provided under Article XX Section 15; (2) the power to take the vaguely defined “necessary measures” in case of cyber attacks under Article XX Section 10 (b); (3) the grant of a vaguely defined “necessary powers” in times of national emergency in the event Congress is unable to convene under Article VII Section 23 (b).

The problem with the granting of these powers is that the President can invent emergency situations to justify his exercise of these powers against legitimate dissent.  A total of eight martial law or emergency rule powers are now reposed on the President including his (4) powers to declare martial law; (5) suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; (6) power to carry out “a national policy”; (7) power to take over the operations of any private business in times of emergency; and (8) power to call out the armed forces in cases of lawless violence, rebellion or invasion.

The fact that the Supreme Court is given the power to review the “factual basis” of a cyber attack or national emergency and the reasonableness of the President’s actions does not provide comfort considering the recent Supreme Court decision finding factual basis in the President’s over-broad martial law proclamation in Mindanao.  While the President is required to report to Congress on his actions and “interventions” and Congress is required to vote jointly on his report, a pliant Congress will most likely allow his intervention given the President’s super majority and intimidating powers.

This reshaping of the Constitution granting the President draconian powers is dangerous to legitimate dissent. He is transformed to a more powerful and intimidating President who can threaten any dissent, which he considers as destabilization. It is strange that while the Supreme Court has given the President the broadest power to declare martial law when he deems fit, the Concom Federal Constitution still gave him a total of eight martial law or emergency powers as if anticipating massive opposition to his rule.