No need for emergency declaration

ON DISTANT SHORE 

By Val G. Abelgas  

We cheered President Duterte when he ordered the military to pursue the Abu Sayyaf after the group of bandits beheaded an 18-year-old hostage two weeks ago following the failure of his family to come up with the P1-million ransom.

After all, Duterte had said in July that the Abu Sayyafs were not criminals and that they resorted to violence only because of desperation brought about by the failed promises to them by the government. I found Duterte’s remark illogical because he considered the small-time drug users and pushers “not humans” and worth killing without due process, ignoring the fact that more than the Abus, most of those killed in his brutal drug war were driven into desperation by their poverty, which, in turn was the result of the failure of their national leaders.
           But just as soon, he changed his tune and said they were indeed criminals, after they brutally beheaded their hostages whose family or government refused their demand to pay the ransom. And when the Abus beheaded the helpless 18-year-old and heartlessly informed his family of the beheading, Duterte ordered 10,000 troops to pursue the bandits.

An all-out war against these bandits have long been overdue, but here was Duterte, finally realizing that just as he has committed the full resources of the national police to the war against drugs, he has to employ the full force of the military to eliminate this other scourge of Philippine society.

And then he had to declare a state of lawlessness, or lawless violence, or national emergency, or whatever you want to call it. Was it necessary?

Duterte and his officials were quick to defend the state of national emergency declaration, which empowers the President to call on the military to help the police suppress and prevent violence. But he had already called on the military to help the police to fight both the drug dealers and the Abu Sayyaf without resorting to a state of lawless violence declaration, why declare it anyway?

Duterte’s supporters said it was necessary following the bombing attack on Davao’s night market, which killed 14 and injured around 70 of Duterte’s constituents in Davao City. But Presidential Legal Adviser Salvador Panelo said the Davao blast did not trigger the state of lawless violence declaration and that it had, in fact, been planned long before the Davao blast. Panelo also said that Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea had made a final draft that was scheduled to be announced on Sept. 4 or Sept. 5, which coincidentally was a day after the Davao blast.

If it was not triggered by the Davao blast, what was then the basis for the declaration of a state of lawlessness? Unless they are admitting that the spurt of drug-related killings has caused a state of lawlessness and a culture of violence throughout the country.

Panelo said the reasons for the declaration were the ongoing campaign against illegal drugs, criminality, terrorism and the offensive against the Abu Sayyaf. He said the police alone cannot do the job and it is therefore necessary to call on the Armed Forces to assist the Philippine National Police.

It cannot be helped that many people were concerned about the declaration, having had a bad experience with similar attempts to use extra powers purportedly to suppress lawlessness and violence in the past.

Although the most telling of these bad experiences happened more than 40 years ago, Filipinos still cannot forget that the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos used the same excuse when he suspended the writ of habeas corpus in 1971 after the bombing of the Liberal Party rally in Plaza Miranda. Many student leaders and activists were jailed without arrest warrants.

Marcos lifted the suspension less than five months later, only to declare martial law on September 21, 1972 for basically the same reason, with the alleged ambush of then Defense Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile as the trigger. Opposition leaders, foremost of which was then Sen. Benigno Aquino Jr., media members, student leaders and activists were incarcerated. Newspaper offices, radio and TV stations were closed. Freedom of the press and speech were suppressed. It took nine years before Marcos lifted martial law, but he continued to rule until he was deposed in the 1986 People Power Revolution.

And more recently, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo declared a “state of lawless violence” in 2006 and ordered the military and police to prevent and suppress acts of terrorism and lawless violence in the country. She claimed there was an attempt by communist rebels and rival politicians to unseat and assassinate her.

In the one week that the declaration of national emergency was in effect, police arrested Anakpawis Rep. Crispin Beltran, Bayan Muna Rep. JoselVirador, newspaper columnist and UP Professor Randy David and Akbayan president Ronald Llamas. Police also raided the opposition papers Daily Tribune, Malaya and Abante.

Although Duterte and his spokesmen assure that the declaration of national emergency is not a prelude to martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, it is sending a chilling effect on the administration’s critics and on the media. “What if he declares martial law?” is a question that now lingers on the minds of those who would dare criticize him. What if some members of the police and the military misunderstand their newfound powers and abuse them? What if Duterte, who is not great at taking criticisms, suddenly decide to arrest critics and close down media outlets?

These are valid concerns based on the people’s previous experiences with similar adventures on emergency powers.

“When you declare a state of lawlessness, this could lead to abuses on political, civil and human rights in the implementation of the declaration, like what happened when former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declared a state of lawlessness, and it spawned unwarranted illegal arrests, which the Supreme Court no less debunked as illegal,” Lagman said.

And that’s precisely why the recent declaration of national emergency should be lifted the soonest possible time and not allowed to run its 60-day limit allowed by the Constitution.

(valabelgas@aol.com)