Lawlessness

Declaring a condition of “lawless violence” seems an exercise in stating the obvious.

We have a historically weak state that allowed a variety of armed insurgent groups to fester for too long, along with bandit gangs that persist with impunity. We have dozens of “private armed groups” who lord over controlled localities. The estimate of loose firearms runs into the hundreds of thousands.

Immediately after that bomb went off at Davao City, President Rodrigo Duterte mumbled something about declaring a state of lawlessness throughout the country, quickly differentiating this with the imposition of martial rule. But he did call on the military and the police to “run” the country.

The presidential utterance caused what denizens of the social media called a “state of confusion.”

First there was confusion about scope. One Duterte official said it was limited to Mindanao. The Palace eventually declared it was going to be nationwide.

Second, there was confusion over what this means operationally. Surely, the Duterte officials assured, this does not include curtailment of any civil right. The writ of habeas corpus is not impaired.

Until the Monday after, no official document has been released regarding the declaration of a state of lawless violence. It remains, until an official document is produced, an utterance from the President during a moment of distress.

His hometown, his bastion so to speak, has just been attacked by enemies of the State. The bandits believed responsible for this attack were clearly mocking the President, projecting the illusion of power they do not really possess.

Duterte was surely saddened by this event and piqued above all. Declaring a state of lawless violence appears a reflex action as he viewed the site of the senseless violence committed.

Many rightly compare this declaration with his pronouncement last month, declaring all appointive posts vacant. The first to comply with the pronouncement were his own appointees, until it was clarified later on that the President was referring to the remnant appointees of the previous administration.

It was a pronouncement with minimal effect. Most of the key posts were filled up with Duterte appointees. The bulk of posts waiting to be filled up by the new administration were in GOCCs, where the law specifies they remain in their post until replaced.

No official document followed that pronouncement. After all, all appointees serve at the pleasure of the President.

The pronouncement of a state of lawless violence could be redundant. The Constitution arms the Chief Executive with the power to call out the armed forces when lawless violence, invasion or rebellion pertains.

No presidential proclamation or executive order is required to ask the armed forces to assist the police in maintaining public order. For years, the military has been assisting the police in fighting both insurgent groups and common criminals.

Dozens of soldiers were killed in the past few years attempting to serve arrest warrants on bandits. Military intelligence units were responsible for the capture of nearly all the top CPP-NPA leaders recently released to participate in the Oslo peace talks.

We have taken it as a matter of course that the military participates in the maintenance of public order. It does not need to be called out to perform police duties. Insurgency is a police matter technically, but it has been the preoccupation of our military since independence.

We do not have the equivalent of the internal security acts that strengthen the hand of regimes in neighboring countries such as Singapore and Malaysia. Those internal security acts allow agents of the state to detain suspects indefinitely for a specified number of probable offenses.

In order to have equivalent powers, our government needs to suspend the writ of habeas corpus for a specified list of probable offenses. That is not what the declaration of a state of lawlessness aspires for.

In sum, President Duterte’s pronouncement in the wee hours of Saturday morning has little legal value. All it has is counter-propaganda value.

The bombing, after all, was intended as an act of propaganda. There is no strategic value in attacking soft targets and vulnerable civilians. It was an act undertaken by desperate groups to create the illusion of power. They want to instill fear among the populace, make communities feel vulnerable and unprotected.

By declaring a state of lawless violence, the state attempts to counter the propaganda intent of the enemy. It seeks to assure its citizens that government is capable of protecting communities and extinguishing the threat to public order and safety.

By declaring a state of lawless violence, the Duterte government sets the premise for greater visibility of our security forces. Searches at the schools, the malls and the bus terminals will be intensified. Army units could be ordered to set up checkpoints everywhere, supporting our chronically undermanned national police.

Always, the war against terrorist groups is as much a propaganda battle as it is a genuine security concern. Government must constantly possess the upper hand on both counts.

When an official document finally emanates from the Palace concerning the President’s pronouncement, it will likely contain guidelines for military and police operations in the conduct of security operations. Those guidelines will likely put emphasis on protocols to guard against abuse and to avert the possibility that higher police visibility could itself become the source of fear among citizens.

The war against drug syndicates already created a charged atmosphere. The parallel war against the terror groups should not aggravate that.