On Monday, Maute Group, an Islamic militant group said to be connected to ISIS brought fear and terror to Marawi. They set city jail on fire, freed 100 inmates, brought panic to hospitals, held civilians captive and even took lives of people. Marawi residents are scared because the worst is yet to come. As residents leave the place, government forces continue to prevent the Islamic group from terrorizing the city. 

Since many lives are at stake and peace cannot be forged, President Duterte had to cut his trip to Russia short to attend to the serious issue that has plagued Marawi. On Wednesday, Duterte placed Mindanao under Martial law with a hint of extending it in Visayas. 

Some supported the move while others want a much better solution than declaring Martial law. For those who were born in the era where the Marcoses reigned supreme, there are apprehensions regarding the implications of Martial law. Will history repeat itself? Is it something that Filipino people should be afraid of? 

The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines define what Martial law is and when it is applicable:

Section 18. The President shall be the 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 or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.

The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.

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 of habeas corpus.

The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion.

During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.

The recently concluded Vice Presidential debate on Sunday resurrected issues on human rights violations under martial law. Among the six aspirants, Bongbong Marcos found himself in the hot seat and most of the aspirants grilled him for refusing to apologize for the violations committed under the martial rule of his father. Although decades have passed, vice presidential candidates just cannot bury the hatchet and forget the past.

Bongbong Marcos also said that he could not apologize for anyone else, only for himself and for what he had done. He also emphasized that every administration committed human rights violations, which is not only limited to unscrupulous killings. Based on the website of Human Rights Victims Claims Board, there are almost 80,000 claims and the application for claims ended on May 30, 2015. The monetary reparation can be found in Republic Act No. 10638.

“Section 4. Entitlement to Monetary Reparation. — Any HRVV qualified under this Act shall receive reparation from the State, free of tax, as herein prescribed: Provided, That for a deceased or involuntary disappeared HRVV, the legal heirs as provided for in the Civil Code of the Philippines, or such other person named by the executor or administrator of the deceased or involuntary disappeared HRVV’s estate in that order, shall be entitled to receive such reparation: Provided, further, That no special power of attorney shall be recognized in the actual disbursement of the award, and only the victim or the aforestated successor(s)-in-interest shall be entitled to personally receive said reparation form the Board, unless the victim involved is shown to be incapacitated to the satisfaction of the Board: Provided, furthermore, That the reparation received under this Act shall be without prejudice to the receipt of any other sum by the HRVV from any other person or entity in any case involving violations of human rights as defined in this Act.

Section 5. Nonmonetary Reparation. — The Department of Health (DOH), the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), the Department of Education (DepED), the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), and such other government agencies shall render the necessary services as nonmonetary reparation for HRVVs and/or their families, as may be determined by the Board pursuant to the provisions of this Act. The amount necessary for this purpose shall be sourced from the budget of the agency concerned in the annual General Appropriations Act (GAA).

Section 6. Amount of Reparation. — The amount of reparation under this Act shall be in proportion to the gravity of the human rights violation committed on the HRVV and in accordance with the number of points assigned to the individual under Section 19 hereof.

Section 7. Source of Reparation. — The amount of Ten billion pesos (P10,000,000,000.00) plus accrued interest which form part of the funds transferred to the government of the Republic of the Philippines by virtue of the December 10, 1997 Order of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, adjudged by the Supreme Court of the Philippines as final and executory in Republic vs. Sandiganbayan on July 15, 2003 (G.R. No. 152154) as Marcos ill-gotten wealth and forfeited in favor of the Republic of the Philippines, shall be the principal source funds for the implementation of this Act.”