THE drug menace is not a ground to declare Martial Law, Senate President Pro Tempore Franklin Drilon said Thursday, as he chided President Rodrigo Duterte’s chief legal counsel for claiming it was.
“Even a freshman law student can easily debunk attorney Salvador Panelo’s statement as having no legal basis. I do not know which Constitution he has learned in law school but our present Constitution has only provided two grounds for the declaration of Martial Law—invasion or rebellion,” said Drilon.
Drilon said Panelo would want people to believe that the Constitution allows the President to declare martial law, not only in case of invasion or rebellion, but also when public safety requires it.
But Drilon, who served as Justice secretary, said the1987 Constitution only allows the declaration of martial law upon the concurrence of two requisites: one, when there is actual invasion or rebellion and two, when public safety requires it. These two requisites must be present, which Panelo conveniently disregarded, he noted.
Drilon lectured Panelo, saying that the phrase “when public safety requires it” under the present Constitution is not a ground upon itself, but a condition that qualifies the two grounds provided under the Constitution.
“I think Panelo is rewriting the Constitution,” Drilon said.
The Senate leader said Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution states that, “In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding 60 days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.”
“I think it is time that attorney Panelo review basic legal principles to better serve the country as the President’s chief legal counsel and to avoid issuing erroneous and reckless statements,” Drilon, a top Liberal Party official, said.
Panelo shot back and insisted that the magnitude of drug cases may warrant the declaration of martial law.
“Mr. Drilon, this is the Duterte Constitution or the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Read it with depth, not superficially,” he said.
Also on Thursday, another Liberal Party member, Senator Leila de Lima described as “worrisome” Duterte’s off-the-cuff remark about declaring martial law.
She said the threat to declare martial law was disproportionate the problem at hand.
Some senators said Duterte’s threat should not be taken seriously.
“Let us not trivialize martial law. I know his style at least from what we’ve seen in the past and even while he was still a mayor. I’ve heard him say a lot of controversial things, funny things sometimes but controversial nonetheless,” said Senator Grace Poe, who ran for president against Duterte but lost.
Poe said she believed Duterte, a lawyer, knows martial law can only be declared if there is an invasion or a rebellion.
She added that the President needed the approval of Congress to impose martial law.
Senators JV Ejercito, Juan Edgardo Angara, Ralph Recto, Panfilo Lacson, Richard Gordon, Vicente Sotto III and Francis Pangilinan also said the President’s remarks should not be taken seriously.
“I do not believe there will be Martial Law. I don’t think it’s a serious remark,” Angara said.
Recto said the nation should learn by now to “auto-delete” the “colorful parts” of Duterte’s pronouncements and must not always take “his antics as policies.”
For those who are outraged, “the best coping mechanism is not to let his curses get in the way of studying the causes he is fighting for,” Recto said.
Lacson said he does not take Duterte’s threat seriously.
“By now, we should already know how to read between the lines… We should be used to it… That martial law statement, I believe, was said impulsively. But I don’t think he’ll declare martial law,” Lacson said.
Gordon said he does not think Duterte had any intentions to meddle in the affairs of the judiciary. He thinks Duterte is just “very, very misunderstood.”
It’s obvious that our President is passionate. I don’t think he intends to interfere in the Judiciary, a co-equal branch of government. In fact, he told the judges to report to the Supreme Court to explain their presence in the list [of suspected protectors of the drug trade],” Gordon said.
At the same time, Recto advised the President and other public officials to “finesse” the way they communicate because words can spark political conflict.
“Words can move a nation, incite people, disturb the peace, and make the political temperature rise,” said Recto.
Because of this, he said people wielding large bullhorns should exercise caution in what they say.
However, he considered a healthy feature of democracy disagreements rise among branches of government, and between the rulers and the ruled.
“And it must be resolved in a manner that crystallizes the issues and does not muddle them, in a manner that brings light, not heat to the discussion,” he said. With John Paolo Bencito