The Supreme Court seemed to have approved the use of martial law a first, rather than last, resort as indicated in the 1987 Constitution, according to Christian Monsod, who was a member of Constitutional Commission that drafted the charter.

Monsod was referring to the decision of the high court in July 2017 to affirm the martial law proclamation of President Rodrigo Duterte over the whole of Mindanao.

ADVERTISEMENT

Monsod reminded the justices that the petitioners against the martial law extension went to Supreme Court believing that it would have the “wisdom, experience and the fortitude to stand up to the other powers of government.”

During the oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Monsod said: “You asked your honor why are we relying more on 15 justices rather than 292 Congressmen and 24 Senators [because] that is the essence of the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances in our Constitution and there is a vetting process by which the 15 justices are assumed to have the wisdom, experience and the fortitude to stand up to the other powers of government.”

He explained that the framers of the Constitution included a martial law provision despite its past horrors because they would “want to cover an extraordinary situation.”

“That is why the provision is specific, extraordinary and ultimate,” he said. “No offense meant [but] the Supreme Court decision of July seems to say that it is a measure of first resort rather than a last resort.”

Monsod said the framers of the Constitution might have “overreached” because they assumed that the country would be ready for a new society.

“I was taught in law school that the executive is the sword, the legislative is the purse, and the judiciary is the conscience of the nation. That is why we are here today,” Monsod said. /atm

Read Next

EDITORS' PICK

MOST READ