BACKBENCHER
Rod P. Kapunan
10/6-7/2012
Third, we ought to recall that when President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law, the nation was already teetering towards chaos. Both the Left and the Right were collaborating in a systematic campaign to topple the government. Given that situation, the declaration of martial law was not the result of any personal motivation, but a duty reposed upon him as commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. No President could abnegate from that responsibility without committing treason.
As some political observers would put it, martial law was a big political gamble for Marcos. It was political suicide because his chances of being redeemed were slim. Yet, for that act of trying to save the Republic, he was condemned. There could be truth to that if he used martial law to consolidate power, in lieu of not having accomplished anything. On the contrary, he was the only president to be reelected in a clean, honest and fair election on the basis of his achievements in the 1969 election against Sergio Osmeña, Jr. He even obtained more votes in his reelection bid than when he first ran against President Diosdado Macapagal in 1965.
Besides, when Marcos declared martial law, his term had yet to expire up to January 1973. However, the ratification of the 1973 Constitution by the people automatically made him the interim President, and the process of ratification was upheld by the Supreme Court in the cases of Javellana vs. Executive Secretary and Sanidad vs. Comelec.
It follows that those who were affected should never interpret their experience as a personal injury inflicted by the State or by Marcos, but the price for their participation to ripen their brand of revolution. Invariably, the charge that Marcos suspended the writ and later imposed martial law just to hold on to power is an attempt to distort historical facts. In the first place, martial law could have been avoided had it not for the Maoists' virulent agitation and attacks against the government.
Fourth, martial law is constitutionally provided, and the president is mandated to exercise it when necessary. The present constitution, as well as the 1935 Constitution which Marcos invoked, provides for that kind of defensive political mechanism.
Some constitutionalists and political writers would even go as far as saying that the survival of the State remains paramount; that in its defense, power could be exercised by the president even if not provided in the constitution. Classic to this was when US Chief Justice Roger B. Taney questioned the authority of President Abraham Lincoln to declare martial law, saying there was no provision in the US Constitution giving him that power.
That question cropped up in that famous incident where an arrest order was issued without a warrant to a secessionist leader in Maryland by the name of John Merryman. Justice Taney ordered the release of Merryman, but President Lincoln ignored it. Justice Taney then raised the point about the authority of President Lincoln to declare martial law. For that, Lincoln wryly asked: "Are we going to save the Constitution or the Union?"
That famous comment made by Lincoln thus carved out a political and constitutional theory that the survival of the State remains paramount; that it could act in its defense even if not so provided in the Constitution.
In the case of President Marcos, the issues about the constitutionality and validity in the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and subsequent declaration of martial law are provided in the 1935 Constitution, specifically Section 10(2), Article VII. The leeway given to the petitioners who questioned his exercise of the emergency power was indicative that the liberties of the people remain primordial to him. It cannot be less than that, for he only had on his side the truth; that as President, his duty is to protect the people, their government, and their sacred institutions.
For that matter, even the Cory Aquino-commissioned 1987 Constitution provided for the same emergency political mechanism in Section 18, Article VII although imposing stringent conditions to validate its imposition.
If there were murky issues that were not clearly resolved by the Supreme Court, the validity in the imposition of martial law nonetheless should have been laid to rest. It is not that we want the petitioners to acquiesce to those errors, assuming there were errors, but on the basis that the high court has already spoken. As a rule, the opposition-petitioners are duty-bound to accept the decision, except when there is a palpable denial of due process or that it was arrived at with grave abuse of discretion. Nobody has the right to reject the decision on the basis that he disagrees with it.
The decision arrived at by the majority of the members of the Supreme Court did not only uphold the legality and constitutionality of martial law, but most important affirmed the factual basis that warranted its imposition. Maybe Marcos benefited from that valid and legal exercise of power, but fate of circumstance was clear that whoever was the President during those tense and unsettling hours in the life of the Republic would nonetheless have done the same. If General MacArthur was quoted saying "there is no substitute for victory", there is also that equal truism that nobody would readily part away his own survival.
Fifth, often we fail to weigh between the positive and negative effects of martial law. Those who were harping in defense of people's rights should have taken that first step to balance the temporary curtailment of their freedom from the higher goals martial law sought to accomplish.
(rpkapunan@gmail.com)
As some political observers would put it, martial law was a big political gamble for Marcos. It was political suicide because his chances of being redeemed were slim. Yet, for that act of trying to save the Republic, he was condemned. There could be truth to that if he used martial law to consolidate power, in lieu of not having accomplished anything. On the contrary, he was the only president to be reelected in a clean, honest and fair election on the basis of his achievements in the 1969 election against Sergio Osmeña, Jr. He even obtained more votes in his reelection bid than when he first ran against President Diosdado Macapagal in 1965.
Besides, when Marcos declared martial law, his term had yet to expire up to January 1973. However, the ratification of the 1973 Constitution by the people automatically made him the interim President, and the process of ratification was upheld by the Supreme Court in the cases of Javellana vs. Executive Secretary and Sanidad vs. Comelec.
It follows that those who were affected should never interpret their experience as a personal injury inflicted by the State or by Marcos, but the price for their participation to ripen their brand of revolution. Invariably, the charge that Marcos suspended the writ and later imposed martial law just to hold on to power is an attempt to distort historical facts. In the first place, martial law could have been avoided had it not for the Maoists' virulent agitation and attacks against the government.
Fourth, martial law is constitutionally provided, and the president is mandated to exercise it when necessary. The present constitution, as well as the 1935 Constitution which Marcos invoked, provides for that kind of defensive political mechanism.
Some constitutionalists and political writers would even go as far as saying that the survival of the State remains paramount; that in its defense, power could be exercised by the president even if not provided in the constitution. Classic to this was when US Chief Justice Roger B. Taney questioned the authority of President Abraham Lincoln to declare martial law, saying there was no provision in the US Constitution giving him that power.
That question cropped up in that famous incident where an arrest order was issued without a warrant to a secessionist leader in Maryland by the name of John Merryman. Justice Taney ordered the release of Merryman, but President Lincoln ignored it. Justice Taney then raised the point about the authority of President Lincoln to declare martial law. For that, Lincoln wryly asked: "Are we going to save the Constitution or the Union?"
That famous comment made by Lincoln thus carved out a political and constitutional theory that the survival of the State remains paramount; that it could act in its defense even if not so provided in the Constitution.
In the case of President Marcos, the issues about the constitutionality and validity in the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and subsequent declaration of martial law are provided in the 1935 Constitution, specifically Section 10(2), Article VII. The leeway given to the petitioners who questioned his exercise of the emergency power was indicative that the liberties of the people remain primordial to him. It cannot be less than that, for he only had on his side the truth; that as President, his duty is to protect the people, their government, and their sacred institutions.
For that matter, even the Cory Aquino-commissioned 1987 Constitution provided for the same emergency political mechanism in Section 18, Article VII although imposing stringent conditions to validate its imposition.
If there were murky issues that were not clearly resolved by the Supreme Court, the validity in the imposition of martial law nonetheless should have been laid to rest. It is not that we want the petitioners to acquiesce to those errors, assuming there were errors, but on the basis that the high court has already spoken. As a rule, the opposition-petitioners are duty-bound to accept the decision, except when there is a palpable denial of due process or that it was arrived at with grave abuse of discretion. Nobody has the right to reject the decision on the basis that he disagrees with it.
The decision arrived at by the majority of the members of the Supreme Court did not only uphold the legality and constitutionality of martial law, but most important affirmed the factual basis that warranted its imposition. Maybe Marcos benefited from that valid and legal exercise of power, but fate of circumstance was clear that whoever was the President during those tense and unsettling hours in the life of the Republic would nonetheless have done the same. If General MacArthur was quoted saying "there is no substitute for victory", there is also that equal truism that nobody would readily part away his own survival.
Fifth, often we fail to weigh between the positive and negative effects of martial law. Those who were harping in defense of people's rights should have taken that first step to balance the temporary curtailment of their freedom from the higher goals martial law sought to accomplish.
(rpkapunan@gmail.com)
