One of the many important consequences of this transitional provision is that the detention by the Marcos regime of some 7,000 suspected or actual insurgents (according to figures from the Human Rights Victims` Claims Commission) – whom the Yellows and Reds claim to be “human rights victims” – was perfectly legal. Marcos` proclamations and decrees had authorized the Department of Defense and the Philippine Gendarmerie to issue the so-called ASSOs – “Warrants of Arrest, Search and Seizure,” the legal document for arresting and imprisoning insurgents and even the opposition. “This is why Duterte sometimes exaggerates [rebel] ambushes to show that it hampers government operations to justify one day imposing martial law on the grounds that public safety is threatened because of these attacks,” he said. What really strengthened Marcos` reign was his skilful leadership in adopting the new constitution in 1973. Judge Makasiar underlined its profound implications: “My view, which is consistent with that of the other members of the Court, as set out in their opinions, is that the question of the validity of Proclamation No. 1081 [which imposed martial law] was excluded by the transitional provision of the 1973 Constitution [art. XVII, § 3 (2)], according to which “all proclamations, ordinances, decrees, ordinances and acts promulgated, issued or executed by the incumbent President shall form part of the laws of the land and shall remain valid, legal, binding and in force thereafter. the ratification of this Constitution…` Under martial law, widespread excesses and human rights violations took place, while the regime reduced violent crime in cities, collected unregistered firearms, and suppressed communist uprisings in some areas. [66] Liliosa Hilao was the first victim of murder under martial law. [67] During this period, more than 70,000 cases of human rights violations have been filed today. The methods of torture used by the army on its victims were grossly inhumane, including beatings, rape, electrocution, treatment of animals and mutilation. Many private institutions, particularly media outlets critical of the government, were shut down and activists arrested by the Philippine Gendarmerie; many abuses were attributed to the latter, which was then led by future President Fidel Ramos.
[68] In total, there were 3,257 extrajudicial executions, 35,000 individual tortures, and 70,000 detentions. Of the 3,257 killed, about 2,520, or 77 percent of all victims, were recovered – that is, tortured, mutilated and abandoned on the side of a road for public display. It is also reported that 737 Filipinos disappeared between 1975 and 1985. [69] The Civil Internal Defense Force, a precursor to the Geographical Unit of the Civilian Armed Forces (CAFGU), was organized by President Marcos to combat the problem of the communist and Islamic insurgency, and was specifically accused of inflicting human rights violations on leftists, the NPA, Muslim insurgents, and rebels against the Marcos government. [70] All of these measures ensure that the immense power of martial law cannot be abused by the president. With all these checks on powers, martial law can only be declared if there is a sufficient factual basis, as the Supreme Court has competently reviewed. In addition, additional details are planned to protect citizens from abuse in the context of the suspension of the habeas corpus judgment. Many of these additions reflect lessons learned directly from the martial law era under Marcos.
Since the threat of invasion is imminent and public safety so requires, I, José P. Laurel, President of the Republic of the Philippines, in accordance with the authority vested in me by Article II of Section 9 of the Constitution, hereby place the Philippines and all parties thereto under martial law and suspend the privileges of habeas corpus contained therein. The Philippine constitutional provision, which allows for the imposition of martial law, states that invasion or rebellion must pose a threat to public safety. Colmenares said Duterte must show in his legal opinion that all or part of the government “can no longer work because of the rebellion” to meet this requirement. Under martial law, the regime was able to reduce violent urban crime, collect unregistered firearms, and suppress communist uprisings in some areas. At the same time, a number of important new concessions were made to foreign investors, including a ban on strikes by organized workers and a land reform program. In January 1973, Marcos announced the ratification of a new constitution based on the parliamentary system, with himself as president and prime minister. However, it did not convene the transitional legislation requested in that document.
Activists staged street protests and a music concert, and unveiled a documentary at Philippine State University. They say the events were aimed at preventing a repeat of the abuse and looting that began after Marcos declared martial law in the Philippines in September 1972, a year before the end of his term. The same applies to the imposition of martial law. It is a useful mental exercise to solve a problem before it arises. Yes, the Congress which votes jointly in ordinary or extraordinary session by a majority of at least all its members may lift this imposition of martial law. This is another big lie of the anti-Marcos slayers, their concocted revision of history. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in two decisions that martial law was constitutional and that Marcos` proclamations, decrees and other official acts were legal. Those decisions were taken by the First Chamber in the General Register L-35546 of 17 September 1974 and GR L-40004 of 31 January 1975 by the Court in plenary session (that is to say, .dem the Court as a whole). “The Supreme Court of the Philippines today upheld President Ferdinand E.
Marcos` martial law regime by ruling that he is president both effectively and by law. In April 1871, Governor General Rafael de Izquierdo declared martial law in the provinces of Cavite and Pampanga as a measure against banditry. “[Duterte] wants the possibility of martial law to always be in people`s minds and in the national discourse because he wants to be able to use it when the time comes,” Colmenares said. “He or his subordinates then take it back, to be mentioned again in subsequent speeches.” Before Duterte declared martial law in Mindanao in 2017, Colmenares noted, “He circulated the idea several times before imposing it.” “The current general situation already indicates de facto martial law,” said Cristina Palabay, secretary-general of the progressive rights group Alliance Karapatan. In addition to the continued increase in militarization despite the supposed end of martial law,[73] the Mission reported numerous extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances of various persons arrested or taken away by military or State security forces. This practice has been referred to as “rescue” to refer to summary executions and extrajudicial executions of people last seen with state agents and found dead a few days later. In the first 9 months of 1983 alone, detainees reported at least 191 cases of recovery to the Philippines Task Force, a figure that may have been largely underestimated and underestimated due to the lack of trained and voluntary documentation during the period. [74] Arrests and imprisonments were also widespread, often in connection with deviations from government policy, which were seen as evidence of rebellion, subversion, and association with the New People`s Army. [75] Those arrested and detained included church workers, human rights activists, legal aid lawyers, union leaders, and journalists.