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…
|SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY!|
Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us daily.
Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider!
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.
benign0 is the Webmaster of GetRealPhilippines.com.