After two years, President Duterte has expressed ambivalence over yet another extension of martial law in the entire Mindanao. This is just as well. The Constitution specifically limits the imposition of martial law to “a period not exceeding 60 days,” with extensions to be approved by Congress. It provides for the imposition of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus “in case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.”
Martial law was imposed in May 2017, initially good for two months, after Maute and Abu Sayyaf gunmen laid siege to Marawi City. As the battle dragged on, martial law was extended until the end of 2017.
The Armed Forces of the Philippines backed by the Philippine National Police “liberated” Marawi in October, with the deaths of the Maute brothers and Abu Sayyaf chieftain Isnilon Hapilon, described as the Southeast Asian “emir” of the terrorist Islamic State. Security officials, however, said the terrorist threat persisted, so Congress approved an unprecedented one-year extension of martial law in Mindanao. At the end of 2018, Congress approved another yearlong extension.
So far, fears of gross human rights abuses by the AFP similar to those during the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos have not materialized in Mindanao, although there have been killings recently apparently targeting individuals involved in human rights-related advocacies.
Martial law has not stopped terrorist attacks in the south, with the country even seeing its first homegrown suicide bomber sowing death and mayhem in Sulu. This is a law enforcement problem that should not require extraordinary state powers to address.
Some quarters feel more protected with martial law in place. But for others especially overseas, martial law implies instability, and the absence of a normal environment for social, economic and other human activities. It’s time to consider the use of regular state powers to confront lawlessness in Mindanao.