State of lawlessness is different from a martial law. This is my answer when someone at the firm asked me if the country will be placed under martial law after President Duterte declared a state of lawlessness in Davao that marred the country last September 2, 2016. The fear that the country will be placed under martial law is understandable considering the political history that left many Filipinos scarred until this time. In order to shed light into this issue, it is important to understand the difference between the two within the legal purview. A state of lawlessness pertains to the condition where there is no regard for the law or situations where there is unbridled conduct or behavior that equates to unruly condition or violence. Its implication is under the state of lawlessness the President may call more Armed Forces to provide more stringent security to places where there is lawlessness.
This power of the President
emanates from the Constitutional provision embodied under Article VII, Section
18 where “The President shall be the
Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it
becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress
lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.” This, however, cannot be
construed as equivalent to the declaration of a Martial Law. It is worth noting
that only under the state of invasion and rebellion that the President of the
Philippines may lawfully declare the country under Martial Law.
Under the state of lawlessness,
the armed forces or the military will be allowed to exercise punitive action to
prevent violence or acts of terrorism. This power of the President to declare a
state of lawlessness is justified to reinforce the security of the country and
to protect its citizens against lawlessness and violence. The military forces
are still under the mandate to observe due process and uphold human rights along
the process of executing their duties to protect the country.
In contrast, when the President
declares a Martial Law when the public safety requires it, the armed forces or
military will be authorized to make arrests without the need of court
intervention. This is because the effect of Martial Law results in the
suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus (note: it is merely suspended
temporarily not exceeding sixty days, unless it is revoked or extended by the Congress
voting jointly by a vote of at least the majority of its members).
The declaration of the Martial
Law is without prejudice to the right of the citizens to seek redress from the
Supreme Court to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the Martial Law
and the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Moreover, the Constitution
provides that the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus will only be applied
against persons charged with invasion or rebellion. The declaration of Martial
Law will have the effect of calling the military to overtake civilian authority
which is not the case in the declaration of a state of lawlessness in Davao
City.
The mere effect of the declaration
of a state of lawlessness is there will be more military and armed forces
called upon to enforce the law, conduct check points and other security
measures deemed necessary to ensure public safety. Civil rights will not be
impaired and the security forces deployed will still be bound by the
Constitutional provisions of due process and respect of human rights and will
be still liable in case of any infractions of the law in the conduct of their
duties.
