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.

Everyone riveted to the TV screen while waiting for extra judicial killings witness, Edgar Matobato to spill the beans. The plot thickens as the truth unfolds (or so we thought). Everyone one in the senate took turns of throwing questions to determine Matobato's credibility. Of course, those who are glued to their TV screen were just waiting for the witness to open a can of worms. There is currently a web of controversies rippling around war on drugs, and it is no secret that some members of the senate are also doing their own investigation. The investigation involves digging deeper into the proliferation of Extra Judicial Killings under the Duterte regime.

Matobato reiterated everything he knew about the extra judicial killings in vivid details. However, it appeared that the more he opened his mouth, the more he got himself into trouble. People who watched the senate hearing took to social media to express their disappointment, dismay and a bit of appreciation for Matobato's chutzpah. Yes, there were mixed reactions about the issue, but most of which are negative. 

Due to the series of inconsistencies on Matobato's statement, Senator Panfilo Lacson could not help but question the alleged Davao Death Squad member's credibility. The question is, are there necessary steps that supposed witnesses have to take to determine their credibility?

C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

1. Qualification of Witnesses

Section 20.    Witnesses; their qualifications. — Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make their known perception to others, may be witnesses.

Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be ground for disqualification. (18a)

Section 21.    Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. — The following persons cannot be witnesses:

(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others;

(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully. (19a)

Section 22.    Disqualification by reason of marriage. — During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. (20a)

Section 23.    Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. — Parties or assignor of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind. (20a)

Section 24.    Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. — The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:

(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants;

(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional employment, nor can an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity;

(c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity, which information was necessary to enable him to act in capacity, and which would blacken the reputation of the patient;

(d) A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession, be examined as to any confession made to or any advice given by him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs;

(e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to communications made to him in official confidence, when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. (21a)

When you decide to aspire for the highest political seat in the country, expect people to put you under the microscope for public scrutiny. Smear campaigns and black propaganda are all part of the political culture in the country. While we are only a few days away from the Presidential Election happening on May 9, word war never ceases. As they say, "it ain't over 'til it's over". Criticisms are hurled up against a presidential candidate who tops the pre-election survey. A blunt example is the anti-Duterte ad involving children. The 30-second ad highlights the negative side of Rodrigo Duterte and the reasons why he is unworthy of becoming the next President of the Philippines. We get it. It is obvious that the TV ad is against Duterte's presidency. However, as we dissect the TV ad, it slowly unravels who we are as voters, as Pinoys. While the ad is deemed to be cringe-worthy, it does not necessarily take a Duterte supporter to realize that something is really wrong with it. Is it simply because the children were used in the making of the video? Is it due to the fact that the campaign was putting Duterte in a bad light? No. The TV ad slowly uncovers what we are as a person. It can be a Freudian slip, a revelation of our subconscious feelings, but one thing is for sure: we reveal our true selves without even knowing it. It is purely paradoxical.Sure this ad does not necessarily change voter perception, but it reveals the values that shaped us as humans. A Duterte supporter might be surprised by his or her reaction to the TV ad not because it is the exact opposite of the dominant qualities of the presidential candidate they are supporting, but it is even more surprising to know that a supporter cheering or clapping for Duterte's cuss words is also against indecency of the TV ad. With Duterte's popularity, we already know what this ad is all about, but the mixed reactions clearly show both our negative and positive traits as Pinoys. We are unified because we are against the idea of using children to fulfill a politician's self-serving biases. On the other hand, we also have double standards of morality. While political goals may be accomplished eventually, nobody can have their cake and eat it too. (credits to the owner of this video)

A rape remark (regarded by some as a bad joke) by presidential aspirant Rodrigo Duterte earned the ire of netizens. The video clip of the April 12 campaign rally at the Amoranto Sports Complex in Quezon City was posted on Saturday, April 16. In the video, Duterte is in the middle of a speech and due to the remark, the video went viral. The statement was: “Ang nagpasok sa isip ko, nirape nila, pinagpilahan nila doon. Nagalit ako kasi nirape, oo isa rin 'yun . Pero napakaganda, dapat ang mayor muna ang mauna. Sayang. There are mixed reactions, most of which are negative. Is the bad remark enough to pass judgment to Rodrigo Duterte? Is this really the truth? The speech was about an incident that dates back in 1989. It was a hostage-taking by Felipe Pugoy, a Davao City Police office inmate. The missionaries who visited the DCPO were held hostage and one of the missionaries was Jacquelline Hamill, an Australian woman. The video clip of the speech drew flak and it was focused on the rape joke! Was it really a joke? “The truth is the truth even if no one believes it. A lie is a lie, even if everyone believes it”. On Sunday, April 17, Duterte was interviewed to clarify what had really transpired during the 1989 hostage-taking incident. Here’s the video of the full interview (credits to the owner of the video):