The term “martial law” is one that is rarely used in a neutral sense by Filipinos. What is normally defined and referred to as the imposition of military rule following the suspension of civilian law is, to many Filipinos, a signifier of thousands of lives lost, billions of pesos stolen, and a democracy of a nation tainted. Its usage in the country is historically charged, and almost always evokes the memory of the what is often referred to as the darkest period of the Philippine Republic.

President Rodrigo Duterte’s declaration of martial law in Mindanao in response to the Maute group’s attack in Marawi has been met with both support and scrutiny from Filipinos. Many see it as necessary in order to quell terror in the region, while many others view the declaration as the rise of authoritarianism in the country. While the specter of Marcos’ martial law looms over Mindanao, it is imperative that the 1972 and 2017 declarations are examined in a level-headed manner.

A new society

Political conflict, alleged rebellion, and the threat of communism prompted former President Ferdinand Marcos to declare martial law in 1972. The proclamation follows Article VII, Section II of the 1935 Constitution which states that “in case of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or imminent danger thereof when the public safety requires it, [the president] may suspend the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus, or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.”

The Philippine economy by the end of 1969 was in shambles. The value of the peso was low, inflation was high, and market prices skyrocketed. These were attributed to overspending and the alleged misuse of government funds to finance Marcos’ excessive campaign.

To add fuel to the flame, Marcos supported the United States’ (US) policy against Vietnam, and sent Philippine troops to aid the US Army despite heavy opposition from other political leaders in the country.

With the frustration against the government, anti-US imperialism sentiment, and failing economy, the people–spearheaded by student activists–went to the streets in a series of protest from January to March 1970, known as the First Quarter Storm. The violent protest ended with hundreds hurt both from the students’ and police forces’ side.

Political conflict also contributed to the nation’s disarray. During the upcoming elections, the Nacionalista Party and the Liberal Party (LP) were head-to-head. LP’s Ninoy Aquino openly spoke out against Marcos and his plans of making the Philippines a military state.

The bombing of the LP rally at Plaza Miranda on August 21, 1971 was a significant turning point for the events that followed. Aquino, who was not present during the bombing, was tagged by Marcos as the perpetrator alongside the communists. However, Marcos himself was also suspected of ordering the bombing.

Moreover, the Constitutional Convention of 1972 aimed to change the 1935 Constitution that was based on US framework. In an interview, Raul Manglapus, a delegate of the convention, said that Marcos presented the question of who will control the government during the transition. This then moved Marcos to put the powers of the legislative and executive arms solely on the seated president. Ultimately, there were no reforms made towards socio-economic aspects. Instead, the Republic was turned into a parliamentary government with Marcos as its head.

Natural disaster also paved the way for martial law. Super typhoons ravaged Central Luzon on July and August 1972 which damaged about 250,000 hectares of rice lands, prompting Marcos to import rice from foreign countries and pass a Php 500 million calamity fund. The Philippine received grants of USD 73,012,134 in total, while loans from foreign governments and financial institutions amounted to USD 115 M. This resulted in bigger debt and higher prices that were heavily opposed by Filipinos.

The final and most controversial blow was the alleged ambush of then Senator Juan Ponce Enrile on September 22, 1972. The ambush was seen as an act of political violence against a government official, and made the “martial law proclamation a necessity.” Enrile would then become the administrator during martial law, but by the 1986 People Power, he would also admit that the ambush was staged.

Following the riots in protests, bombings across the country, talks of alleged rebellion facilitated by the Communist Party of the Philippines-National People’s Army, and alleged attacks to government officials, Marcos suspended the writ of habeas corpus and put the entire country in a state of martial law. The rest is history.

A state of lawlessness

On May 23, 2017, Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) troops launched an operation to arrest Isnilon Hapilon, a leader of the Southeast Asian branch of Islamic State (IS), who was said to have been hiding out in Marawi. At the same time, fighters of the IS-inspired Maute group stormed Marawi, which resulted in an armed confrontation between Philippine government forces and Muslim extremists.

Later that day at 10:00PM Philippine time, Duterte, who was in Russia, issued Proclamation No. 216, which placed Mindanao under martial law and suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire island.

Following the initial siege, Duterte contemplated an extension of the 60-day period of martial law. Officials from AFP and the Philippine National Police (PNP) eventually stated they would endorse such an extension.

On July 22, 2017, Congress voted 261-18 in favor of an extension for six months, meaning that Mindanao would still be under martial law by the end of the year.

While an overwhelming majority of officials expressed their support, some of them held reservations. Senate President Pro Tempore Ralph Recto and Senator Grace Poe were among those who would have preferred a shorter extension, citing concern for the soldiers in the frontlines and the Maranaos who have been displaced by the conflict, respectively.

Some were more skeptical, including Senator Risa Hontiveros, who feared that a prolonged period of martial law would eventually lead to a nationwide imposition of military rule.

‘First as tragedy…’

With the fear of history repeating, Filipinos were divided upon the declaration of martial law in Mindanao. Majority of Filipinos were supportive based on a Social Weather Station (SWS) survey released last July. While 57% of Filipinos believed that Duterte was “right” to declare martial law in Mindanao, 6 of 10 respondents did not approve of its expansion to Luzon and Visayas.

However, reported human rights abuses against farmers and activists in Mindanao and the displacement of over 300,000 families from Marawi continue to affect the current opinion.

On June 17, 2017, during the Supreme Court oral arguments on Proclamation 216, justices brought up petitions concerning the grounds that justify the imposition of martial law in response to the Marawi crisis.

One of the many items under question was whether or not the attack in Marawi was a legitimate display of rebellion. Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo cites the group’s raising of the IS flag as an explicit sign of rebellion, given the extremist group’s objective to supplant national governments with a worldwide caliphate.

On the other hand, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen was concerned that the martial law declaration would be playing into the Maute group’s hands by directing public attention towards them. Albay Representative Edcel Lagman (First District) was also skeptical, arguing that the group was just fabricating links with IS for propaganda.

Proclamation 216 cites the Maute group’s attack on a Lanao del Sur military outpost in 2016 and its instigation of a mass jailbreak in Marawi City in the same year as justification for the imposition of martial law on the entire province. At the very least, these events establish the Maute group as a real threat to the safety of Mindanao and should their influence spread beyond the region, the rest of the archipelago.

PNP Chief Director General Ronald Dela Rosa and AFP Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eduardo Año expressed their support for an extension, explaining that rehabilitative efforts may require military aid. House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez pushed the idea of a five-year extension, saying that extending martial law for five months, one or even two years would be “too short.”

However, the 1987 Constitution does not cite the military’s obligation to participate in relief efforts given their primary objective to quell any armed opposition that threaten civilian population. In addition, it does not state that functioning civilian institutions may only ask aid from the military under martial law, or that military forces are prohibited from intervening in any other circumstance.

For instance, in the aftermath of Typhoon Yolanda in November 2013, Philippine military troops aided in rehabilitative efforts. The AFP even got support from four foreign militaries. Former President Noynoy Aquino was pressured by officials to declare martial law in Tacloban for fear of anarchy in the city since widespread looting was already reported. However, Aquino opted to declare a state of national calamity as informed by Republic Act No. 10121, which details government procedure for the rehabilitation of a given region.

The 1987 Constitution established check and balances for presidential powers to prevent another dictatorship, including an option for Congress to revoke a proclamation of martial law. Although this is complicated given the Duterte administration’s House supermajority, the Constitution allows local governments to maintain a certain level of autonomy under martial law. For example, as stated in Article VII, Section 18, functioning civilian courts and legislative assemblies will not be supplanted by the military.

In light of these recent developments, it is paramount that Filipinos generate an informed alertness instead of descending into unrestrained panic, and ensure that the country’s flawed but functioning democracy is not compromised anew.