Martial Law “debate”: Does the Constitution serve Filipinos? Or do Filipinos serve the Constitution?

The trouble with the whole “debate” around the proposed extension of Martial Law is that it’s been infested by “constitutionalists” beholden to the 1987 Yellowtard Constitution. The points that are truly important to the average Filipino have been all but buried under a mountain of ululations drawn from the original (and obsolete) paranoid delusions that went into the framing of this tired old Yellowtard bible.

Fear not, for all has not been lost to the shrill screeching of emotionalist shills. Amazingly, the only real key point around this “debate” had, in fact, already been made in the Inquirer Editor’s blurb for today

Why does the Duterte administration seek to extend the imposition of martial law by an entire year?

It is true that the threat of radicalization remains; the carcass of the central district of Marawi City is by itself a potent source of resentment and a tool for recruitment.

But the Constitution requires an actual invasion or rebellion. It does not allow the use of the martial law power on speculation or for preventive purposes. (The first of the commander-in-chief powers, the calling-out provision, should suffice.)

It may be argued that public safety requires the extension, but again the Constitution is clear: both actual rebellion and public safety conditions must be met.

While you, the reader, are sifting through the above looking for that key point I mention earlier, a clue that might help in filtering out the noise from the above lies in the title of the piece itself: “An offense vs the Constitution”. It seems that the Inquirer Editor is likening the Constitution to one of those onion-skinned (easily-offended) “temperamental” brats that are used as fodder for those traditional street rallies organised by the usual liberal and communist mobs.

But, yeah, the more intelligent amongst us would have worked it out easily. The point was made that the main thing to consider is that, perhaps, “public safety requires the extension.” That is, perhaps, what ought to be debated by our society’s venerable geniuses — public safety.

Unfortunately, the Philippines’ brains trust has focused their sights on the sacred Yellowtard Constitution and coated what would otherwise have been a simple and straightforward point of debate in a layer of legaltard bullshit. Indeed, this is an example of how the whole point of “democracy” is being lost on the Yellowtards. The debate around Martial Law extension is ultimately political in nature. This is why it is left to Filipinos’ popularly-elected representatives in Congress to decide whether or not Martial Law should be extended — because like juries who keep the dangerous orthodox legalese of lawyers and judges in check in Western court rooms, Congress is entrusted by Filipino voters to keep the ivory tower Taliban-like pronouncements of ultra-orthodox constitutionalists beholden to the 1987 Yellowtard Constitution in check.

The Inquirer Editor insists that “the Constitution is clear” as if to say that the issue of public safety is subordinate to that manufactured clarity.

Herein we see a classic case of the Philippines’ disente “thought leaders” getting behind the wrong arguments yet again. The issue on whether or not the extension of Martial Law will contribute to improving public safety, to be fair, remains debatable. And so the debate over Martial Law extension should be framed around that point — not on the obsolete ululations of a discredited mob of constitutional fundamentalists beholden to a charter that mirrors thinking imprisoned by the emotional blackmail perpetrated in the mid-1980s by Yellowtard oligarchs.

print

7 Comments on “Martial Law “debate”: Does the Constitution serve Filipinos? Or do Filipinos serve the Constitution?”

  1. I love the t-shirt in the picture. It just sums this place up. Laziness, self-pity and hubris all encapsulated in one neat sentence.

    The imperative voice means: YOU come and save us, because we can’t or won’t. “You” of course is unspecified, but the implication is that the person wearing the T-shirt will be waiting patiently outside the sari-sari store with his Red Horse while somebody else does the saving.

    And then there’s “race”. Do Filipinos seriously believe that they are a “race”, something separate and apart from humanity-at-large? And if so, do they actually think that they are special enough to be worth saving?

  2. As Jemy Gatdula said, if Martial Law is completely bad, then why is there a provision for it in the 1987 (“Cory’s”) Constitution?

  3. Martial Law is already extended in Mindanao. It is a practical thing to do, because of the threat of another rebellion. We don’t want another Marawi.

    Those who are beholden to the Cory Aquino constitution; should think, that this constitution was made to fit the Aquino Cojuangco political axis, and its Oligarch allies. To replace this constitution, for one that serves us all, should be the priority of Pres. Duterte.

    I believe this kind of Presidential system of government, should also be replaced. Crooked politicians like those of the Aquino Cojuangco political axis, can easily bribe the COMELEC Chairman, like Andres Bautista, to commit electoral fraud, in their favor.

    Martial Law should be applied to the whole Philippines, since there is an active NPA rebellion. Those crooked politician, should be arrested and hanged, and what they have stolen, must be confiscated by the government. Corruption and graft are prevalent in our country; because the corrupt are never jailed, hanged or punished !

  4. 30 Years after People Power Revolution, did the subsequent administration made internal security a priority? I remember sporadic attempts to re-conciliate and make peace with the Moro and Communist rebel groups, they refused. So little by little from Ramos to Erap to Arroyo’s administration, I’ve seen, massive counter-insurgency operations against these rebels, they worked, but for some sad reason Noynoy’s administration was more focused on internal budgeting with DAP and getting in the good graces of Obama’s Pivot to Asia, and pretty much agreed with them to become a proxy against China, it was even sadder to think that Noynoy and his cronies in academia and the media were so spiteful and petty, they went with the “West Philippines Sea” renaming, then several sad encounters like the SAF44 abandonment by the glory hound who wanted a Nobel Peace Prize that he wanted to both the Bangsamoro Law to pass and nabbing a most wanted islamic terrorist, we all know how that went. If these critics and yellows who can sit comfortably in their homes while the countryside is still for three decades infested with armed groups so they can say they are on the “Right side of history” by being complete partisan idiots, then they can go choke on it. This is a problem that must be addressed, if these brave political parasites would rather want a War against China than securing all internal problems in the Philippines, they can head on first either to the battlefield or the asylum.

  5. Policy is largely set by economic elites and organized groups representing business interests with little concern for public attitudes or public safety, as long as the public remains passive and obedient.

  6. NO NO NO, you are the one that is losing what the whole point of Democracy is Flipper ! The country is supposed to run on Law and Order. The LAW of the land is laid out in the Constitution, it MUST be followed…THAT IS THE LAW and that is Democracy in action, period. If you do not like the LAW, change it !!! its simple, you do not get to have it both ways,Sonny.
    You want the Man you want in office and you want him to have the power to act as a Dictator, and it is you that use the EXCUSE to do this as a ‘Public Safety’ measure. If the PUBLIC is not safe enough, hire more Cops. That is the law of the land, Son….change it if you want change but you can not simply subvert it with words, that is NOT democracy and if Dueterte were to do exactly that by using the EXCUSE ‘Public Safety’ he would be a Dictator, not the leader of a Dempcratic state.
    I for one think the country should have had a rebellion long ago, but if the Failipino people want to have the government rhey have elected , do the job they were elected to do, by the rules of the government they live under…..well, then that is just the way it is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.