Martial law is a declaration by the President, permissible during invasion or rebellion when public safety necessitates it, for a period not exceeding sixty days. Martial law is the imposition of direct military control of normal civilian functions by a government. Here are the grounds, limitations and effects of martial law:
Declaration and Grounds:
The power to declare martial law is vested in the President of the Philippines by virtue of the 1987 Constitution. Specifically, Section 18, Article VII states that “[i]n 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”. This provision clearly lays down the exclusive grounds for the imposition of martial law: actual invasion or rebellion, coupled with a requirement that public safety necessitates such a measure.
The power to declare Martial Law is considered an extraordinary power of the President, carrying with them the potential for the curtailment and suppression of civil rights and individual freedoms. The distinction between the “calling out power” and the powers to suspend the writ or declare martial law is crucial. The calling out power, which allows the President to call the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion whenever it becomes necessary, has a less stringent criterion. However, for the graver actions of suspending the writ or declaring martial law, the Constitution explicitly requires the existence of an actual invasion or rebellion and a compelling need for public safety.
Notably, the framers of the 1987 Constitution deliberately omitted “insurrection” and the phrase “imminent danger thereof” as valid grounds for suspending the writ or declaring martial law. This deliberate exclusion reflects a concern that the “imminent danger” standard was too susceptible to abuse. The prevailing view is that the President’s calling out power is sufficient to address situations of imminent danger without resorting to the more drastic measures of suspending the writ or proclaiming martial law.
Regarding the determination of whether rebellion exists, the Supreme Court has held that the President only needs to convince themselves that there is probable cause or evidence indicating that more likely than not, a rebellion was committed or is being committed. Requiring a higher standard of proof would unduly restrict the President’s exercise of these emergency powers. Consequently, the Supreme Court, when reviewing a declaration of martial law or suspension of the writ, does not need to delve into the absolute accuracy of the reports relied upon by the President. The assessment of the threshold or level of sufficiency is primarily an executive function, provided it was not exercised arbitrarily. The test for the judiciary is the reasonableness of the factual basis adopted by the Executive in ascertaining the existence of rebellion and the necessity to quell it.
Limitations and Checks and Balances of Martial Law
The 1987 Constitution incorporates several crucial limitations and checks on the President’s power to declare martial law or suspend the writ of habeas corpus, reflecting a commitment to preventing abuses of this significant authority.
First, any proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ is temporary, with a constitutional limit of sixty days. This fixed duration ensures that the extraordinary measures are time-bound and require further justification for extension.
Second, within forty-eight hours of issuing the proclamation or suspension, the President is mandated to submit a reportto Congress, either in person or in writing. This reporting requirement ensures that the legislative branch is promptly informed of the executive action and the reasons behind it, facilitating immediate oversight.
Third, the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to revoke the President’s proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ. This provides a direct mechanism for the legislative branch to check the executive’s action if it deems the declaration unwarranted or no longer necessary.
Fourth, and equally significant, the Supreme Court is vested with the power to review the sufficiency of the factual basis for the President’s proclamation or suspension upon the petition of any citizen. This judicial review serves as a critical safeguard against potential abuse. The Supreme Court must decide such a case within thirty days from the time it was filed. The standard of this review, as mentioned earlier, focuses on the reasonableness of the factual basis relied upon by the President in determining the existence of invasion or rebellion and the necessity for the declaration in the interest of public safety.
It is important to distinguish the level of judicial review applicable to the President’s different military powers. While the President’s decision to initially exercise the calling out power is largely discretionary and the actual use of the armed forces for this purpose is generally not subject to judicial review (except for constitutional limits or grave abuse of discretion), the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the writ are subject to a more substantive review by both Congress and the Supreme Court regarding the factual basis.
Effects of Martial Law
A crucial aspect of the 1987 Constitution’s provisions on martial law is the explicit delineation of what martial law does not entail, aiming to prevent a recurrence of the experiences under the 1972 declaration.
First and foremost, the Constitution clearly states that a state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution itself. The fundamental law of the land remains in full effect, and the government continues to operate under its framework.
Second, martial law does not supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies. The regular judicial system and the Congress continue to perform their constitutional mandates. This is a critical safeguard to prevent the complete takeover of governance by the military.
Third, the declaration of martial law does not authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function. Civilians should continue to be tried in civilian courts for offenses, ensuring the application of regular rules of procedure and evidence.
Fourth, martial law does not automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The suspension of the writ is a separate and distinct action that the President may take under the same conditions (invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it) but must be explicitly proclaimed.
Fifth, even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended, its application is limited only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion. This ensures that the suspension does not become a blanket authority for arbitrary arrests and detentions for other types of offenses.
Sixth, during a suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person who is arrested or detained must be judicially charged within three days, otherwise, they are mandated to be released. This “three-day rule” is a critical protection against prolonged detention without legal process.
Furthermore, a declaration of martial law does not suspend fundamental civil rights of individuals. The Bill of Rights enshrined in the Constitution remains effective, guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and protections to all citizens, even during martial law.
Finally, any allegations of human rights violations and abuses that may occur during the implementation of martial law and the suspension of powers should not go unpunished and must be resolved in separate legal proceedings. These alleged violations are not considered sufficient grounds to warrant the nullification of the declaration or suspension itself, but they underscore the importance of accountability for any abuses committed.
Extension of Martial Law
Recognizing that the initial sixty-day period might not be sufficient to address the exigencies of invasion or rebellion, the Constitution allows for the possibility of extending a proclamation of martial law or a suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. However, this power to extend is not solely at the discretion of the President and is subject to further limitations.
First, any extension must be upon the initiative of the President. Congress cannot unilaterally decide to extend martial law or the suspension; it must be based on a request from the executive branch.
Second, the grounds for the initial proclamation or suspension must continue to exist. The extension must be grounded on the persistence of the invasion or rebellion and the demands of public safety. If the conditions that warranted the initial declaration have ceased, an extension would not be constitutionally justified.
Third, similar to the initial declaration, any extension is subject to the Supreme Court’s review of the sufficiency of its factual basis upon the petition of any citizen. This ensures continued judicial oversight even for extended periods of martial law or suspension. In conducting this review, the Supreme Court has indicated that it will assess and evaluate the written reports of the government agencies tasked with enforcing and implementing martial law in the affected area. The test remains one of reasonableness of the factual basis adopted by the Executive in ascertaining the continued existence of rebellion and the necessity to quell it.
In conclusion, the declaration and implementation of martial law in the Philippines are governed by a comprehensive set of constitutional provisions that carefully balance the need for the executive to respond effectively to grave threats to national security and public safety with robust safeguards to protect fundamental rights and maintain the supremacy of civilian authority and the rule of law. The detailed limitations and checks and balances reflect the lessons learned from past experiences and a commitment to ensuring that this extraordinary power is exercised judiciously and accountably.
English