But if placed under scrutiny and dichotomy then we can (partially) conclude that there's a good contrast between the old and new Martial Law ruling. (Disclaimer: This section of the article was not meant as a pro but rather an enlightenment.)

The Old Martial Law / Article VII, Section 11(2) of the 1935 constitution states that:

Marcos declared martial law in 1972, hence he assumed complete authority over the country and had able to take over military, media, and every aspect of the state.

The New Martial Law / Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution states that:

Every arrests, warrant-less or not, and seizures executed shall only fall within the parameters instructed by the Constitution.

If a series of attacks could trigger the country to subject to militarization, will it be any help if the innocent lives get caught in a bigger crossfire than it is now? Unfortunately, not so “friendly” fire airstrikes had killed multiple soldiers from their very own troops which is really saddening considering the fact that what we’re fighting for here is safety. But extrajudicial killings are very much prevalent in his administration anyway so who am I kidding.

The siege will only aggravate heated conflicts between the government troops and these armed men and sooner or later intensify military operations, and off to a full-blown autocracy we go which is really familiar, if you ask me and I'm not even going to sweep this idea that Digong is a promising dictator who could give Macoy a run for his billions.

I am hoping this martial law ruling doesn’t extend way beyond its sole purpose and that it should operate for the safety of every civilians. Also I’m hoping Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez choke on his words; this country doesn't deserve another era of living hell.

< Back to Projects

Martial Law 2.0

It wasn't a desperate measure, sure, because a country deserves more than what seems to be a justification

of a rather abhorrent rule

(disguised as a resolution

during a critical condition),

or so we believe.

“The President shall be 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, insurrection, or rebellion, or imminent danger thereof, when the public safety requires it, he may suspend the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus, or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.”

The declaration of the martial law ruling in Mindanao set to run for 60 days was a mere petition to completely abolish cataclysmic acts of rebellion and extremism, mainly the Maute group that has been terrorizing the city for a month now. However, the Lagman petition claims that the idea of rebellion that may constitute to the act of terrorism by the aforementioned group was not really clear since there is no proof that Maute’s main prospect is to remove Mindanao’s allegiance to the country. It was also evident by the way they dispersed ISIS flags around the city, in which the SC believes to be a propaganda.

ENTERTAINMENT

FOR THIS PROJECT:

WRITER:

VIANCA GAMBOA

ARJANE MAE SAYSON (ILLUSTRATOR)

BEA PATRICE VILLA (MARTIAL LAW FACTS IN NUMBERS)

v. used to call attention to something important

An online news magazine that aims to shed light to things that matter.

about.

“A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.”