Sagot :
Answer:
Today, we make history. For the first time, all three branches of government will implement the constitutional provision on martial law.1 What we in Congress do today could serve as precedent for generations to come. Ladies and gentlemen of the Congress, we are eyeball to eyeball with history.
We start with certain premises. One premise is that a question of law should not be considered as a question of wisdom. Law, particularly the Constitution, is supreme. Dura lex sed lex: the law is law. The law must be upheld, even if it entails heavy sacrifices. Another premise is that, reading the Constitution is not a mere function of literacy. Reading - and much more, construing - the Constitution is a technical skill. We have to follow the rules of constitutional construction, collected from various Supreme Court decisions over the ages.
The primary aid to constitutional construction is the language of the Constitution. Its words must be given their ordinary meaning. The primary objective is to carry out the intent of the people who ratified it. As the Supreme Court ruled: "The Constitution does not derive its force from the convention which framed it, but from the people who ratified it." 2
The intent of the people is gleaned from what the Germans call Zeitgeist, or the spirit of the age. In 1986, the people wanted an extremely restricted system of martial law. I humbly submit that the temper of those times provides the necessary corollary that in case of doubt, the doubt should be resolved against martial law.
Failure to Meet Test for Martial Law
We are here dealing with martial law, which is not formally defined by the Philippine Constitution, and which is not even mentioned at all by the U.S. Constitution, which serves as our template. I will use this 1940 definition: 3
"Martial law is the public law of necessity. Necessity calls it forth, necessity justifies its exercise, and necessity measures the extent and degree to which it may be employed. That necessity is no formal, artificial, legalistic concept but an actual and factual one: it is the necessity of taking action to safeguard the state against insurrection, riot, disorder, or public calamity. What constitutes necessity is a question of fact in each case.
"Martial law is the public right of self-defense against a danger threatening the order or the existence of the state. When the ordinary civil authorities - the police - are unable to resist or subdue a disturbance, additional force, military in nature, may be applied. The extent of military force used depends, in each instance, upon the extent of the disturbance."