On The Extension of Martial Law

Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that:

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. x x x

[Underscoring and emphasis, supplied]

By the very words of the Constitution, it is obvious that the declaration of martial law shall
not exceed 60 days.

On May 23, 2017, President Rodrigo Duterte declared the whole of Mindanao in a state of
martial law and suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for a period of 60 days. Said
state of martial law and suspension of the privilege ends on July 22, 2017. However, prior the lapse
of such period, President Duterte asked both the Senate and the House of Representatives for an
extension of the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao until December 31, 2017 or for such period of time as the
Congress may determine.

Thus, on July 22, 2017, the Senate and House of Representatives granted the presidents
request to extend the same until December 31, 2017. The 5-month extension was granted as
officials also deemed it necessary since there is much work to be done in the recovery,
reconstruction and rehabilitation of Marawi.

The 1987 Constitution requires that martial law may only be declared when there is actual
rebellion or invasion and that public safety requires it. If such was the stringent requirement for a
proclamation of martial law, the same requirement must also be applied to its extension. Hence,
an extension of the proclamation of martial law must also be granted only if there is actual rebellion
or invasion and that public safety requires it. As the saying goes, the spring cannot rise above its
source. Corollarily, the extension must conform with the requirements for the declaration. Thus,
an extension must only be based upon actual rebellion and invasion and that public safety requires
it. There was no showing that such was the basis for the said extension.

The 1987 Constitution does not expressly provide for any time limitation on the extension
of the proclamation of martial law. As expressed under our Constitution, it is only the martial law
declaration that should be limited to 60 days. However, going beyond the intent on the imposition
of such cap on the initial declaration, it is but logical to conclude that if the initial declaration has
a period limitation, more so with the extension. Again, the 1987 Constitution limits the imposition
of martial law to only 60 days. It stands to reason that an extension thereof should also be limited
to not more than 60 days.

Otherwise, it would be easy to circumvent the proscription in our Constitution on the period
limitation of martial law.

If such was the case, the President may declare a martial law for 5 days and within such
period ask Congress to extend it. And Congress would extend the same to a period more than 60
days, say, 150 days. Finis. The President has just went around the Constitutional prohibition and
got what he wanted.