So you think the whole of Mindanao needs martial law to contain the terror threat. You either have not lived long enough in this terrorized land or have enormous faith in the man who, in the wink of an eye, declared it from Russia, a country that has forgotten what it means to be free.

President Rodrigo Duterte said martial law – for no more than 60 days straight, please, according to the Constitution – was necessary to quell the Maute Group’s plan to establish an ISIS province in Philippines. Ironically it is a claim that’s never acknowledged by the institution that is now implementing his order: the military.

On the contrary, the military has boasted of needing just more time to address the Maute problem in the Lanao provinces, as it made victorious claims of having killed dozens of Mautes in the last year or so. The surgical strike on May 23 was in fact targeted against the ISIS-inspired Isnilon Hapilon, who apparently has moved his base from Basilan on the western side to northern Mindanao, to link up with the Mautes.

Between the terror hotbed that is Basilan-Sulu, which has lived with beheaded kidnap victims and piles of butchered soldiers for decades, and Marawi, which has struggled with its usual share of insecurities, is a sea of questions and doubts as to why martial law was declared following the attacks on Mindanao’s Kilometer Zero.

What’s the point when the military has already deployed practically all its assets and troops to the entire stretch of Mindanao since Duterte became president? What’s the point when, in remote villages in Marawi or Sulu or Maguindanao or even Davao, the omnipresent military has been raiding suspected rebel lairs in full force? Ask remote villages that have borne the brunt of the ferocious anti-terror campaign in Mindanao: Matagal na pong martial law doon.

We see bodies being dumped in Marawi, we hear of extremists threatening those who don’t share their views. This is not new, unfortunately. We’ve seen this in the margins of Muslim communities in Zamboanga, Basilan, Sulu, Maguindanao, Cotabato, where the anger is real and not without basis, and always spikes in the face of gun power.

So we look at this proclamation beyond its stated foundation: for the state to muscle its way through our fundamental liberties outside the tokhanged streets of Metro Manila – and institutionalize what’s already happening in Mindanao’s margins, in hopes of getting us used to state muscle in our everyday lives.

Martial law in 27 provinces, no matter the constitutional safeguards, is like a thief in the night that gives us troubled sleep – and it’s not even because we’re scared.

We lose sleep over it because it seduces us into believing it is the only way to stop terror, when not even the wealthiest and most equipped country in the world has succeeded.

It plays to our penchant for shortcuts, until it hits home.

It makes us forget the real problems that have made terrorists thrive in the region: the endless bickering among military and police units, the incoherent sharing and analysis of intelligence, the whimsical deployment of troops ordered by trigger-happy civilian leaders, the corruption of local bosses who benefit from the criminal activities that the terror pipeline facilitates, our former and incumbent presidents’ habit of turning a blind eye to the dizzy mix of crime and local politics – for the tactical goal of controlling election races in these contested areas.

Martial law makes us lose sight of the true nature of the new threat of terror: that it is ubiquitous, that it knows no boundaries, that it is not only Mindanao's cross to bear.

So we ask: what could be more terroristic than a decision made on wrong assumptions and which was merely waiting for a trigger for the man who’s been been toying with the thought since he came to power? – Rappler.com

When the President promises violence, he usually delivers. At the very least, he tries his best. I have no doubt that Digong really wants to emulate Ferdinand’s Marcos’s martial law in its brutality, and that he craves for the nationwide power the dictator cemented in 1972.

Duterte’s disposition is harrowing, and advocates of liberal democracy should be very wary. However, though we should always be vigilant, authoritarianism is unlikely to re-emerge in the same guise. Our babyboomer mayor-president may think he is living in the 1970s, but things have changed a lot since then. 

At the outset, we need to emphasize one aspect of Marcos’s “martial law,” namely that it was more than just martial law. Martial law is simply military rule over a defined place for a specific period of time. What Marcos did in 1972 is what political scientists call an autogolpe: a self-inflicted coup. Through proclamation 1081, he facilitated a military takeover of the system he led in order to install himself as dictator of a completely new regime. 

After September 1972, our political blueprints changed as Marcos and the military drove out the opposition, padlocking congress, sequestering media outlets, and jailing dissenters. From the inauguration of the republic in 1946, the Philippines had been ostensibly a liberal democracy. After 1972, it became a tyranny. 

Political scientist Benedict Anderson once remarked that Marcos had successfully taken the logic of violent local politics and nationalized it. If before 1972, you had oligarch warlords running cities and provinces with private armies, after 1972 you had one national warlord with a national private army to do his bidding: the armed forces. 

National versions of DDS

Duterte salivates over replicating the Marcosian model. From his from press conference as president-elect, he has styled himself as “the mayor of the Philippines” and he obviously wants to turn the PNP and the AFP into national versions of the Davao Death Squad. In the eyes of the President, only through nationalizating the powers of a Davao warlord can his model of “kamay na bakal” be spread across the country. 

But here’s the bad news for Duterte and the good news for pro-democracy activists: It is not so easy to pull an Apo Lakay. The man was sui generis in his ambition, his Machiavellian slyness, and his capacity to corrupt the best and the brightest. He also had aces Duterte has never had. 

First, Marcos had some of the best legal brains and spin-doctors at his disposal to twist the legal system and deflect criticism. Yet where FM had legal luminaries like the immortal Juan Ponce Enrile, Duterte has the rhetorically challenged Calida and the sartorially challenged Panelo. And where Marcos’s ambassador to the media was the silver-tongued Kit Tatad, Duterte’s is Margaux. 

To be fair, Digong’s men have run the most powerful social media campaign we have thus far seen, but Marcos’s appeal transcended simple propaganda: Of all presidents, he was the one who articulated a programmatic, albeit hypocritical, long term vision of what he wanted for the country. 

Second, Marcos implemented martial law at a time when the legal constraints on the president were not as well defined. Say what you will about the 1987 Constitution, but its paranoia may end up saving us. Even if Congress abdicates its role to review martial law, we can still take them to task, because, well, at least they’re still there. And given the history of judicial cowardice during the martial law period, I doubt the Supreme Court under this chief justice will simply let the executive have its way. 

Most importantly, Marcos had the luxury of time. To engineer a successful autogolpe, one needs strong support from the military. Marcos built this support, not by going around camps giving away Glocks as Digong does, but through slow, deliberate scheming. Alfred McCoy’s history of the Marcos military, Closer than Brothers, makes it plain that Marcos’s campaign to corrupt the military began as early as his first year in power. For 7 years (1965-1972), he eased out professional graduates from the PMA, retired critical voices, and promoted Ilocano lackeys like Fabian Ver. 

Bid vs time

Marcos did the corrupting quietly, without the braggadocio and macho cursing of his 21st century imitator. It took more than two years for a critic, Ninoy Aquino, to point out in 1968 that Marcos was secretly creating a “garrison state” by “ballooning” the military budget and privileging overstaying generals. And even then some people thought Aquino was being paranoid. 

Duterte does not have 7 years. His age, his health, and his term limit make his autocratic bid a bid against time. And as time runs out, Duterte will rush. And as he rushes, he will make mistakes. 

But even if he executes his plans masterfully, he will still have to confront a military that is now more professional than ever. Decades of security sector reform after Marcos have yielded an AFP that will not simply allow itself to be used by politicians for anti-democratic ends. The Western Mindanao command, for example, has displayed incredible restrain amid these trying times. Matikas po ang ating mga kawal. 

Of course absolute power can corrupt absolutely, and Duterte is a powerful and popular man. I worry about the state of our democracy and the stability of our institutions. Yet I will sleep tonight knowing that years of democratic consolidation cannot simply be overturned overnight.

I hope I am not being naïve. – Rappler.com

Lisandro E. Claudio (@leloyclaudio on Twitter) is an Associate Professor at the Department of History, De La Salle University-Manila. 

There has been a chorus of demands from the public for President Rodrigo Duterte to disclose the “factual basis” of his declaration of martial law. He, however, has no constitutional obligation to publicly disclose this in full – vague and generic reasons to assuage public curiosity, yes, but not sensitive information, which could potentially put in danger not only the success of the operation but also the lives of our soldiers fighting on the ground.

The President, however, has a duty to fully disclose his factual basis to Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the automatic duty to revoke, validate, or extend the period of martial law. Thus, to properly decide on the propriety of the declaration, it is essential that all members of Congress – both the House of Representatives and the Senate – have to be informed of the full basis of the declaration so that they can properly decide their course of action.

President Rodrigo Duterte issued Proclamation Number 216 is the second martial law declaration in the post-dictatorial Philippines, the first being the 8-day martial law declared by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the province of Maguindanao on December 4, 2009, after the infamous Ampatuan Massacre. Duterte's proclamation declares a state of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the Mindanao group of islands for a period not exceeding 60 days.

After a martial law declaration, Article VII Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution requires that the following procedure should be done:

• Within 48 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 Congress. 
• Congress, if not in session, shall, within 24 hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.

“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.”

President Duterte’s written report to Congress was handed to Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III and House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez on May 25, during a special Cabinet meeting in Davao City. While the submission of the President’s written report complied with the 48-hour requirement in the Constitution, the House of Representatives, through Majority Leader Rudy Fariñas, announced that since the President intends to “send [his] report to Congress in writing…there will be no need for [Congress] to convene tomorrow (May 25) or Friday (May 26).” (READ: No joint session on martial law? Congress 'shields' Duterte)

The nature of this convening requirement has fortunately already been passed upon by the Supreme Court in Fortun vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GR Number 190293, March 20, 2012), the suit involving the constitutionality of the aforementioned Maguindanao martial law.

In the case, the Supreme Court characterized Congress’ power to revoke and extend a martial law declaration as an “automatic duty to review and validate or invalidate.” These operative words must be noted: “automatic duty” and “review.”

First, the power of Congress is in the nature of a “review,” meaning the authority to re-examine, revise, or consider for purposes of correction (Black's Law Dictionary). This would translate to Congress’ authority to pass upon the declaration so that, in the end, it can invalidate, validate, or extend the same.

In contrast with the Supreme Court’s power of review, which is confined to the “sufficiency of the factual basis,” the scope of Congress’ review is fuller and unfettered, covering not just its factual basis, but its propriety, proportionality, and even its plain wisdom.

Thus, in the Maguindanao Martial Law case, the court noted that, under the 1987 Constitution, the power to proclaim martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ is no longer the sole and exclusive prerogative of the President, but now exercised “in tandem” with Congress, “sequentially” and “jointly.” Sequentially and jointly because “after the President has initiated the proclamation or the suspension, only the Congress can maintain the same based on its own evaluation of the situation on the ground, a power that the President does not have.” 

Second, the review of Congress of the President’s martial law declaration is an “automatic duty.” This means that what was assigned to Congress was not just a discretion to revoke or not to revoke, but a positive duty to review. This would mean the duty to summon evidence on the factual basis, examine them, and, in the end, make its own independent judgement on the propriety of the declaration.

And the review is automatic, because no one needs to file anything to trigger the review powers of Congress. By the mandate of the Constitution, Congress has to instantaneously convene when it is in session, or within 24 hours following the proclamation or suspension if it is not in session, without need of a call.

The matter of revoking a martial law declaration is one of the strange scenarios in the 1987 Constitution where the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate are voting “jointly.” I say strange in the sense that the 24 incumbent senators would be mixed with 292 members of the House of Representatives during voting, rendering the Senate virtually irrelevant.  

In the Maguindanao Martial Law case, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress’ power to review a martial law declaration takes precedence over its (SC's) own review. While some justices dissented and asserted that the Supreme Court’s power to review is independent from Congress, the majority went on to rule the following:

“Only when Congress defaults in its express duty to defend the Constitution through such review should the Supreme Court step in as its final rampart. 

xxxxxxxxx

If the Congress procrastinates or altogether fails to fulfill its duty respecting the proclamation or suspension within the short time expected of it, then the Court can step in, hear the petitions challenging the President’s action, and ascertain if it has a factual basis.”

Would this mean that those who intend to question a martial declaration before the Supreme Court have to wait for Congress to be in default before they can do so? When exactly can we say that Congress is already in the state of procrastination or that it already failed to fulfil its duty? Does the failure of Congress to convene within 24 hours (as in the case of the present Congress) already qualify as procrastination? These are confusingly vague standards that the Supreme Court can hopefully clarify, if not further redefine, in the future.

Now that martial law has been in place in Mindanao and the President has sent his report, the ball is in the hands of Congress and the Supreme Court, which, under the Constitution, are tasked to keep the President’s power in check. It must be recalled that the Marcos martial law came to be, along with its horrors, precisely because these two other great branches of government failed us. Congress handed its full powers to Marcos in a silver platter and the Supreme Court coalesced with the dictator. In their failure, the country burned to the ground and until now we still struggle to pick ourselves up from those ashes.

Today, we look up to them again, Congress and the Supreme Court, hoping that this time they will be on our side. – Rappler.com 

Emil Marañon III is an election lawyer who served as chief of staff of former Comelec Chairman Sixto Brillantes Jr. He completed his LLM in Human Rights, Conflict and Justice at SOAS, University of London, as a Chevening scholar.

We are a nation that has gone through the monstrosities of martial law. Repeating it again, with no less than another butcher, Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) chief General Eduardo Año, as administrator, will inevitably worsen rights abuses.

The people in Mindanao have been through various forms of repression instigated by counterinsurgency programs and the recent all-out-war declaration.

With martial law in tow, an open fascist rule coupled with impunity will set the stage ripe for open State terrorism.

President Rodrigo Duterte said that the martial law declaration was done to preserve the country and its citizens. He also said that Marcos' martial law is "very good.”

Learning from history, however, martial law has done the opposite, aggravating rights violations instead of ensuring the safety and protection of citizens. More so with warmongers holding significant influence in Duterte’s decisions.

When civilian supremacy and civilian processes are thrown to the side, so are our rights. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus will also open the floodgates for illegal arrests, torture, and detention of civilians as what happened when the past regimes implemented the said measure.

We also take exception at statements of Vice President Leni Robredo to "trust the AFP." If anything, we should be vigilant and cautious against military operations.

Gone were the days where the AFP can earn our trust, after their role as main violators during and after Marcos’ martial law declaration. We remind Robredo that the atrocities of martial law were not just on Marcos’ hands but on several more military generals and high-ranking officers. We would do well to never forget that.

 Karapatan strongly urges Duterte to immediately lift martial law in Mindanao, and to stop loaded caveats regarding putting the entire country under martial law. 

There are inviolable rights that cannot be foregone, regardless of place, time or context. But despite such safeguards, martial law is a pandora’s box that will give way to systematic rights violations. Just like during the Marcos regime, these violations will be justified under the blanket of “security," “protection," and “national interest."

We should all be wary of the covert war-making strategies of the United States (US) to justify their intervention in several countries, done in collusion with US surrogates bearing the face of top Philippine military officials.

Suara Bangsamoro has earlier reported of Maute Group ties with the military. We should further investigate the US and the military’s role in the Marawi incident lest it becomes another excuse to deploy foreign troops and further undermine our sovereignty.

We stand in solidarity with the people in Marawi and the whole of Mindanao. It should be reiterated that martial law is not the solution, along with other militarist approaches.

We remain steadfast in the rooting out the causes of unrest and calling for a just and lasting peace. Should the Duterte administration continue down this path, he and the warmongers under him will be held accountable. – Rappler.com

Cristina Palabay is the Secretary General of Karapatan, an alliance of individuals, groups and organizations working for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Philippines. (Profile photo from Palabay's Facebook account)

The declaration of Martial Law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao last May 23, 2017 by President Rodrigo Roa Duterte offers a quick respite from the armed disruption in Marawi with dire consequences on the lives of affected communities. Yet, for sure this declaration will worsen the Mindanao situation infected by social injustice.

The swift solution to address the Marawi crisis with an encompassing Martial Law in the whole of Mindanao creates a vacuum – a vacuum of uncertainty on whether violence or displacement will escalate, employing “military-solution” to the complex Mindanao problem. 

There are calculable consequences of the Martial Law declaration: arrests, detention and death of personalities (especially those critical of the administration), increase in the number of internal refugees and displacement of communities in Mindanao and in other islands, and growing armed conflicts and social unrest due to militarization.

All these will result to a continued socio-political imbalance that directly and indirectly hinders integral economic growth affecting the government and ordinary Filipinos. 

Ending the peace process

The search for a just and lasting peace is now put in the dustbin of history. The GRP panel just ended the peace talks with the NDFP at the height of discussing the implications of the ceasefire agreement in the areas of socioeconomics and political reforms. Another lost opportunity for a greater cause in solving the ills of social injustice in the whole country. 

The impacts of the failed ceasefire agreement will ripple, growing rebellion affecting governance and the suffering of many Filipinos from poverty and war. And these will add to the growing imbalance of pro-people development in the whole of Mindanao, where the pseudo-development agenda of government sits on the throne of military power in the guise of imposing peace and order. 

When peace becomes unreachable, the more Filipinos will suffer. A clear sign that President Duterte departed from his earlier position to pursue peace among rebel groups – for which many have seen the glaring pressure from his many military advisers now holding privileged positions in the government.

Since the president extended the call for peace early on his term to any rebel group, including even the Abu Sayyaf, why not continue the groundwork to make Mindanao free of violence and ultimately address the issues that breed rebellion?

Proof enough that at the very start, the government is not serious about the pursuit of a just and lasting peace, especially with the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) represented by the NDF. The many rounds of talks then, are only a stage-show of image-building. 

"The civil and political rights of the people in Mindanao are gravely being curtailed and trampled on by the all-out attacks against the people. Hundreds of people are being rounded up. People are being detained or stopped from travelling for having no identification cards. The military are threatening people against issuing statements or posting information on social media that may be deemed anti-government. Military and bureaucrats have issued guidelines restricting people’s rights to assemble and prohibiting them from staging protest actions. A martial law crackdown hangs over the heads of social activists," said the Communist Party of the Philippines in a statement.

Clear and present danger

The Mindanao bishops are still discerning on the moral compass of where this Martial Law is leading, aware of the complexity of the volatile situation of peace and order they are not totally engaging in a counter position with the government's declaration.

But somehow, the collective statement of the Mindanao bishops offers a voice of caution: "Martial Law must be temporary…We shall condemn any abuse of Martial Law and as in the past will condemn it outright if it goes in the way of evil. Let us be vigilant.”

And also, the Presidents of Ateneo schools around the country in their joint statement offers a consoling call for continued vigilance: "We call on everyone to remain vigilant, to hold our officials accountable for their actions, to demand to know and to be told the truth at  all times. We expect that the safeguards placed in our Constitution to curb the abuse of power will be respected and followed." Both institutions call for peace and prayer for the victims and the whole of Mindanao.

If the Duterte government continues to deny the responsibility of the 8,000 drug-related killings under its watch, chances are it will also deny the future “excesses” of the current Martial Law in Mindanao. 

During the anti-Martial Law mobilization along Fuente Osmeña in Cebu City, a protester holds a placard that reads “Martial Law = State Terrorism.” The declaration of Martial Law is at the threshold of abuses – human rights in nature. We cannot address the many armed conflicts solely with "military" considerations/ The whole web of complexity undermining the Philippine situation needs a grounded analysis that includes everyone -  social, political, economic and even cultural. 

Undeniably there is a growing support of the declaration from among his ardent supporters who remain supportive on his iconic call for change. Reminiscent of Marcos' batas militar that early on its implementation ordinary Filipinos were made to believe that such declaration will do greater good for the country; justifying tooth-and-nail that the mass protests as the mask of rebellion. The rest is history of repression - colored with arrests, tortures and deaths.

According to the American historian, Alfred McCoy, the figure of the victims of Marcos’ Martial Law: "3,257 killed, an estimated 35,000 tortured, and some 70,000 arrested." Marcos Martial Law should never be repeated. What difference will it be with Duterte’s? Duterte will either make or break the tyrannical record of Marcos.

Martial Law can never assure that there is no abuse of power in its scope. It will in fact embolden the excess of police and military powers – both proven in our Marcos experience and of the administration's war on drugs. This in fact, is the clear and present danger. 

Voices of discontent

The path that leads to the good of the Republic is following the Constitution. Even the declaration of Martial Law is clearly stipulated and more so the safeguards on how and why it should be implemented. President Duterte's end game on his Martial Law declaration is his stubborn reluctance to hear the side of the law and will continue imposing Martial Law - clearly saying that he will only listen to the PNP and AFP, not to Congress and the Supreme Court.

Sadly, there are already glaring signs of ruthless insinuations on how Martial Law can be done on the ground – encouraging killings, raids, and even rape – from the mouth of the president himself.

There is a need to consolidate the growing voices of discontent, if there is still hope to immediately end this Martial Law, and move towards the original direction of sustaining inclusion of Muslims, Christians and non-believers (and of any Filipino) in integral development based on social justice. In the end, Martial Law is not the solution. 

Our fear of Martial Law is not an act of unfairly judging President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, but rather a way of telling him not to fall into the trap of military calculation that leads to social miscalculations – moving him away from his consistent call for inclusive social change. – Rappler.com

Br. Tagoy Jakosalem, OAR, is a visual artist and sustainability educator. He studied philosophy, finished his theology in 1999, and has been active with the Climate Reality Project of Al Gore. He was instrumental in the formation of heartanonymous.org, an organization involved in holistic rehabilitation response to the families who survived in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda).

Current Marawi events are summarized into either an issue of military strategy or about human rights. But the reasons behind the emergence of ever more violent and radical groups in Mindanao are never central. History has taught us that no matter how many terrorists are killed, more will come up until the root of the problem is addressed.

It is easier to look at them as monsters who take pleasure in burning, beheading and looting and as a different category of human (??) beings who are incapable of empathy and reasoning. This is how most societies raise their children: with fairy tales made of black or white characters and good triumphing over evil. Very few people are born sociopaths, and no religion ever promoted the war of all against all.

Maute fighters were at some point regular “Juans”. What got them off track should be our main focus, if we want history to someday stop repeating itself.

One clue to understanding Philippine society’s failure to stop the emergence of violent radical groups in Mindanao is education. Citizens are the product of their education, and when rebels are looking for activists to increase their ranks, the most convenient places to look at are religious schools.

In Mindanao it is thus important to look at the Madrasah.

What is Madrasah? This Arabic word describes a school. Used in English it describes an Islamic institution of education. It encompasses structures that may be the following: night or weekend sessions during which students learn about the Qur'an; comprehensive schools that provide a range of Islamic subjects, literature and mathematics meant to be a main source of education; or schools that base their education solely on religious texts and do not include "secular subjects". 

Madrasah appeared in the Philippines with the first Muslim missionaries in the 14th century. Their structure evolved from being reading and sharing session to constituting Mindanao’s sole formal system of education once Islam had become the major religion.

It is the  United States that decided to implement secular education all over the country. Among Moros, the change was greeted with suspicion. Some sent their children to public school, but the majority kept them in religious institutions. Children were thus unable to enter Philippine universities and to secure employment outside of the Muslim region.

Double standard in Marawi

After spending decades ignoring Quranic education, it is under the Arroyo administration that the Philippine government showed interest in the Madrasah. A program of integrated Quranic education was implemented in high Muslim concentration areas, additional 1 to 2 hours in elementary and 3 to 4 hours in high school.

It should be good enough for “them”.

Studying Madrasah in Marawi shows the application of a double standard. 

Moros requested for the recognition of Islamic education and it was given to them. However, we realize that this effort to grant some of their demands is the cause of some problems.

Marawi students are encouraged to go to accredited schools as they integrate religious education. They gain in competitiveness and are able to attend Philippine universities. However, Quranic subjects are treated differently from core subjects. Curriculums are vague and standard books are non-existent. These are left to the appreciation of the heads of Islamic studies in each school. There is no governing body. There is no national standard evaluation and very little literature available on this topic. Sponsoring and recognizing religious education is sensitive. People base their moral values, their beliefs and some of their political views partly on religion; and Islam is a religion than carries an inherent issue of consensus on major topics.

Moreover, Tahfiz deserves specific scrutiny. They are non-accredited structures that focus solely on the memorization and interpretation of the Quran.

Questioning its legality

In Marawi, they are big and well-maintained buildings. The year-long programs are used as substitutes for schools. Kids are cut from all contacts with the outside world for periods of 3 months during which they repeat the Quran until they know it by heart.

Before we even question the educational content and the pedagogical methods, we must question the legality of such structures. The process through which any organization must go in order to obtain permits is complicated. This process is meant to protect children. We are facing structures that look everything but clandestine and are tolerated by all including the authorities.

Don’t we want to know what these kids, the future generations of Moros, are learning?

Why neglect the peaceful potential of Islam in the Islamic and general curriculum?

Challenges for Dep-Ed

Two promising leads are left unexploited by the Philippine Department of Education.

The first one is that on the aspect of interfaith knowledge, the Philippines is a plural society and education fails to acknowledge it. It would be time for school books to do away with the Christian kayumanggi lechon-loving stereotype. Plurality holds potential if it is respected and acknowledged.

The second lead that deserves greater inquiry is the peaceful potential of Islam. Violent leaders manage to pick parts of the Quran, to take them out of their context and to use them to brainwash poorly educated youth into violence.

Why is it that the Department of Education does not work with Islamic scholars and successful political violence rehabilitation centers to provide a curriculum based on the peaceful message of Islam? Using the Medina charter would be a great starting point, for example.

The State is responsible for the protection of its citizens, of its youth, in particular. Primary education provides moral, intellectual and emotional foundations to future generations.

It is therefore essential for governments to know and understand what is happening in its schools. Finding balance in integrating Quranic education to the accredited system of education is a difficult task. However, mistakes toward this process in the Philippines are so monumental that we can only wonder about a hidden agenda.

Without going as far making accusations, I would like to invite you to be more inquisitive and critical. Why set up a system that is bound to fail? Do we want this historical conflict to end or is there too much profit to gain from this context of violence and lawlessness?

The office of then mayor Duterte identified issues with the Madrasah reform of education as early as 2004. How come the now President Duterte is doing so little about it? – Rappler.com

Anais Prudent is a humanitarian worker. She holds a bachelor in development studies from Ateneo de Manila, a master in International Security from Warwick (UK), and a master in Asian Affairs from NTU (Singapore).

Heto ako ngayon nag-iisa,

Nag-bobook sa gitna ng EDSA,

Lagi na lang akong nababasa,

Ngunit heto nagrerefresh pa rin.

Heto ako, basang-basa sa ulan,

Walang matatawagan,

Walang masasakyan,

Sana'y may kuya pa akong maipapara

At nang mabawasan and aking kapaguran.

#FridayFeels is a cartoon series by the Rappler Creatives Team. Cathartic, light, but relevant, it's a welcome break from your heavy news feed! You can pitch illustration ideas by sending a message to the Rappler Facebook page.  

When you hear the phrase “reproductive health,” it’s instantaneous. You think women’s health. You think feminism. You see a female silhouette, a pack of pastel pink pills, a flower in bloom. 

And to a great extent, it’s only natural that these come to mind. The issue of reproductive health has always been intrinsically linked to women. We have the wombs. We bear the babies. Our bodies are the ones beholden to the information, products, and services a proper reproductive health law can provide.

In turn, women are the ones who ultimately suffer when reproductive rights are yanked away, which is, unfortunately, what is happening now, thanks to the years-long delay of the reproductive health law’s full implementation.

But the issue of reproductive health should not be exclusive to women. It is an issue that affects everybody, and men should better understand that the stakes are great for them as well.

Here are two main points every man should keep in mind:

The baby bump

It still takes two to tango. It is just as much a man’s responsibility to make sure that sex is safe, if having a child is not in the plan. Making sure that all possible methods of birth control are accessible before a round of whoopee is a concern of both individuals. 

In fact, if you are a woman in a relationship and are on some form of birth control, you should strongly consider splitting the cost of the contraceptives with your partner, if you aren’t already. Both of you are benefiting from the ability to choose when and when not to have offspring; why should you have to shoulder the full cost? You can’t make a baby without semen! 

Furthermore, when it comes to the bigger picture, it is clearly not only women who should ensure that every human who comes into the world is wanted and cared for. A society with a significant chunk of children who can’t be brought to their full potential is a terrible one to live in. Whether you are a man or a woman, it’s only right to want every person to be sheltered, fed, and educated, as well as empowered to contribute positively to the community. A world lacking in these rights for unplanned children can't be headed in any good direction.

Labor of love

Secondly, any romantic partner would want the best for his loved one’s well-being, and birth control pills may just be a factor in this. Many women take these pills not just for birth control purposes, but also to quell other health issues. 

10% of women of child-bearing age, for instance, suffer from Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, or PCOS, wherein a hormone imbalance gravely affects a woman’s menstrual period and fertility. Birth control pills are a standard treatment for PCOS, helping to regulate menstrual cycles and treat other symptoms such as acne and hair loss. 

Women also rely on birth control pills to prevent debilitating dysmenorrhea, or the intense cramping and pain that occurs during menstruation. Some women get dysmenorrhea so badly they can’t even get out of bed. It’s the kind of pain that can stop them from working or studying altogether. 

If your parter is reliant on these pills to live a healthier, easier life, you most certainly would fight for their ability to access contraceptives. No one in his right mind would just let his partner suffer. 

Ang tunay na lalaki ay tunay na makatao

In the end, yes, it is understandable that the fight for reproductive health in the Philippines has been geared toward women; there is an urgent need to get the attention and concern of the ones most affected by the issue. But that, in no way, gives men the leeway to ignore the fight altogether. 

Reproductive rights are human rights; to have access to reproductive health is to have access to health, period. A good person wants everyone to be able to make his or her own choices in life in general, and that goes beyond any kind of niche you put yourself in.

In fact, more and more men these days are identifying themselves as feminists without a twinge of irony, because they understand that to be a woman who can fully realize her worth is, essentially, to be anyone who can fully realize her worth.

It’s not about what gender you are, but about what values you hold. – Rappler.com

United States President Donald Trump made it official on Thursday, June 1: he is pulling out the US from the global climate change agreement, which was signed in Paris in 2015 under his predecessor, Barack Obama. It was his campaign promise.  

World leaders have called the US' withdrawal a tragedy, and vowed to defend the pact anyway. The former head of COP21 said the US' decision was "shameful," while the United Nations said the pullout of the US could add 0.3 degrees of warming.  

Here are a few things to consider about Trump's decision: 

1. It won't officially happen until 2020. 

Article 28 of the Paris Agreement says:

"At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary."

It also says:

"Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal."

Since the ratification of the US entered into force on November 4, 2016, it is only allowed to withdraw from the agreement on November 4, 2019, and it will take effect only on November 4, 2020. By then, it is possible that the US will have a new president-elect.

Another option for Trump is to pull out the US from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement’s mother convention. The agreement says any country that withdraws from the UNFCCC is considered automatically withdrawn from the Paris Agreement. If the US does this, they will in effect be withdrawn from both treaties one year from notice of withdrawal, likely in June 2018. 

With the UNFCCC being universal in its membership with 197 parties (196 countries plus the European Union), it will even be more controversial if the US does this and it may take the risk of facing more scrutiny from the international community. Also, since the US’ ratification of the UNFCCC was pursuant to a Senate approval, the US Senate could insist that it would also need their approval from any such withdrawal.

2. It may not be as bad as we think.

While the Paris Agreement has legally entered into force, the first implementation period will not be until 2020. This is why all the contributions by country parties only cover periods from 2020 to 2030/2050/2100.

So what exactly has been and will be happening until then? From 2016 to 2018, negotiations are ongoing under the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement (APA) to draft decisions that will implement the Paris Agreement. A closer look at the provisions of the Paris Agreement would show they are a little vague as to the “whats,” “hows,” and “whens.”

For example, what exactly are the numbers that parties have to include in their submissions? How will the compliance and implementation committee operate? When do parties have to provide the information asked for in Article 13? Decisions will have to be agreed upon, via consensus of all parties to the agreement, to clarify these things.

Right now, the APA allows all parties to the UNFCCC to participate in these negotiations. By 2018, however, only parties to the Paris Agreement will be able to join the negotiations.

Personally, I think the US' withdrawal will not have a significant effect on the rest of the world. While the US will still be able to participate in the climate negotiations, it is highly likely that they may lose all credibility and goodwill. While before, parties had to be careful about not antagonizing the US (because an agreement with the US is better than none – they do account for 15.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions), now their positions may not count for much.

International law, in practice, operates merely on peer pressure and quid pro quo. With Trump's international announcement that the US will stay on the bench, it would be unrealistic for other parties to allow it to call the shots. 

The US has historically blocked important decisions on matters such as climate finance, adaptation, and loss and damage. Without the US at the negotiating table, developing countries might even gain some leverage. If and when the US decides to later on re-join the agreement, they will be bound by these decisions that cannot be renegotiated. 

3. Even without the US as a party to the agreement, the rest of the world will continue to fight on.

As I said, the US does count for a whopping 15.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but there is still the other 84.4% that can be worked on. Even now, countries such as France, Germany, and even China have pledged that they will forge on and commit higher contributions even without the US as a party to the agreement. 

And, anyway, climate action is not solely contingent on national governments. Climate action is done on the ground, by each and every individual. I am hopeful the citizens of the US will continue to conserve energy, invest on climate-smart technology, and, overall, be more aware and responsible for their lifestyle choices.

Already, the mayor of New York and the governor of California have said that even if Trump pulls out the US from the agreement, they will continue to work on battling climate change. Large US corporations – such as Apple, Google, and even major oil firms, such as Exxon and Chevron – have publicly supported the Paris Agreement, and have been urging Trump to change his mind. One thing is for sure: the masses will always have the power to trump the oligarchy (pun intended).

With that said, the US' impending withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is still a tragedy. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, stated in its most recent report: “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropological emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history.” It is widely acknowledged that about 97% of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies agree that humans are largely responsible for changing the climate.

It is quite incredible that amid record-breaking droughts and intensified typhoons, powerful leaders still choose to ignore the cold and hard facts. We can only hope that the US will make up for this in the near future. 

As for the Philippines, the only course of action is to take advantage of the situation. Now, more than ever, the Philippines must strengthen its panel of negotiators and its relationships with other developing countries to ensure that we get the best possible results from the climate negotiations.

The Philippines must continue to pursue its advocacy of ensuring climate justice and sustainable development. The country must make sure that developed countries comply with their historical responsibilities and provide adequate financial, technological, and capacity-building support to developing countries to achieve the ambitious goals of the Paris Agreement – yes, even without the US. – Rappler.com 

Railla D. Puno is an environmental law and policy specialist by profession. She has been a member of the Philippine delegation to the climate negotiations since 2015.

The topic comes up casually with my wife in a lot of different ways.

Sometimes, we discuss it over dinner, pushing a cart down a supermarket aisle, or while driving looking for yard sales in the backroads of Rahway, New Jersey. Edison, Colonia, Woodbridge, Clark, and Scotch Plains.

The issue is retiring and it gets batted around quite a lot, especially now that we are near 60 and have begun counting off the modest options we still have.

Like scores of Filipino-Americans who have worked for years outside the country, we think of what it would be like to return and retire in the city where everything got started for us.

We left more than 20 years ago in May 1996 for an assignment in Singapore, and then in February 1998 for the New York area. Except for a brief stint in Hong Kong, the townships of New Jersey have been home for us the last two decades.

The numbers are fairly straightforward. 

We have earned enough points to qualify for social security. Rounding it off, it is nearly US$2,000 per month if we both retire at 62.

Given the expenses living in a pricey New York metropolitan area, would it make more sense to retire in the Philippines? If the peso is trading at 50 to 1 dollar by then, that would be P100,000. 

If we can find some part-time work in Manila, we can live comfortably in a condo or an apartment somewhere in the city.

I can watch my nieces grow up, which would be a treat. Most of my friends would be around. I can probably go back to teaching, which is something I love to do.

We can probably do some travelling all around Asia. Hong Kong is less than two hours away; Singapore, Bangkok, and Vietnam are about 3 hours off.

The downside to all that is we are both concerned, deeply worried, about personal safety. It may take a while getting used to living in Manila and again being on guard just walking around the National Press Club.

People tell us it has become safer after the brutal anti-drug crackdown launched by the government. 

But there is a reason why "akyat-bahay" is so well known. Outlaw cops would also be bothersome, especially if they can just burst into your house and gun you down while claiming self-defense.

The problem, of course, is that our money won’t go so far here in New York if we have to live on a fixed income from Social Security. While $2,000 may sound a lot, the expenses quickly pile up, especially if you get sick, which old people seem to do a lot of.

Medicare, which will help defray our medical expenses in our old age, is not available outside the United States because it is not portable. 

Ideally, we also would want around 3 scouting trips to the Philippines before making up our minds. I don’t know if we can even afford 3 trips. One trip may be all we get.

The other part of the equation is purely sentimental. 

We love the New York area. You can hop on a train and be in Manhattan in less than two hours from our place. 

But there is also a pull you can feel from the place you grew up in, where everything is so familiar. It is, in a hokey kind of way, "home."

Which way will the whole thing tip? I don’t know. 

Since we do not have to do anything until a few years from now, it may have to wait until then.

"Kicking the can down the road" is not exactly a decision. For now, it will do. – Rappler.com 

Rene Pastor is a journalist in the New York metropolitan area who writes about agriculture, politics, and regional security. He covered the 9/11 attacks in New York and the innumerable coups in the Corazon Aquino era. He was, for many years, a senior commodities journalist for Reuters. He is known for his extensive knowledge of agriculture and the El Niño phenomenon and his views have been quoted in news reports.  

Martial law, the ultimate trigger for the Filipino liberals and activists, has finally reared its ugly head. The word's potency has ripened tremendously after the burial of former president Ferdinand E. Marcos and President Rodrigo Duterte's frequent and ominous flirtations throughout his campaign.

As expected, the proclamation has caused stirs in the echo chambers of social media. However, can we say that this reaction is warranted? Doesn’t the Marawi debacle warrant such a reaction from our head of state? Has our history ultimately ruined the primordial function of the state?

The global threat of Islamic extremism has become even more tangible to the Philippines. The capture of Marawi was mere hours apart from the Manchester bombing and followed by a bus terminal attack in Jakarta.

The frequency and possible coordination of these attacks in the West and East alike should not be downplayed. Such attacks need a firm and decisive response. The realm of theory and textbook definitions would definitely recognize such responses. Some commentators have chosen to allay fears of martial law being a Trojan horse for suspected authoritarian aspirations. (READ: Martial Law 2.0 in Mindanao: Beta version of Duterte's authoritarian project)

The suspension of civil freedoms has always been valid in times of emergency. Leon Trotsky said, “Every state has been founded on force.” Any law needs force to have teeth. Such thinking may be linked to the justification of history’s worst wars and persecutions, current realities, or at least framings of realities, and may deem such exceptions and deployment of violence as pragmatic options.

How can a necessary function of the state be spoiled forever or at least for the 21st century? (READ: LOOK: Palace defends martial law in new social media video)

More pragmatic policymakers defending martial law may still need to contend with the explosion of communication media – the somehow simultaneously overdiscussed and underanalyzed realm of social media. (READ: Netizens terrified or trusting of martial law in Mindanao)

Whether on local, or world politics, cyberspace has an arena for truth claims became saturated with conspiracy and conjectures. Even satire is lost on the uninitiated. The deployment of photos, videos, and quotations has elicited confusion on a myriad of topics. (READ: Propaganda war: Weaponizing the internet)

Contemporary thinkers like Jodi Dean have already expressed their suspicion of social media as the hope of political communication. She states that internet provides fetishized form of participation – a fantasy of participation. (READ: Fake accounts, manufactured reality on social media)

Under the guise of greater connectivity and visibility, information technology actually hides the failure of democracy as people mistake online visibility with engagement.

Weaponizing uncertainty

The internet’s information glut has made terrorism all the more terrifying. Along with violence, a terrorist’s most potent weapon is fear – amplified in times of uncertainty. What is a better time to weaponize uncertainty than in an age of post-truth and fake news? A violent act in any part of the world can be claimed by ISIS anytime, allowing them to potentially latch onto any tragedy at will, regardless of its factuality. (READ: Terrorists, social media, and spreading ideologies)

The state would naturally respond with harshness and firmness with such a flexible enemies. However, it also faces the age of post-truth where crises can be doubted, fabricated or downplayed, causing crippling debates on any action's legitimacy. Geography and information deficits have caused a space for speculation glut that further muddles the situation. Terrorists hide not only in the shadows but also in the chatter of the crowd.

Another complication: what incentive is there for states to fulfill its primordial function when it may possibly benefit from the chaos? Presidents with questionable legitimacy, for instance, Donald Trump’s presidency arguably thrives on deflecting evidence and affirming fear and chaos.

These days, while attempting to deflect scandal, statesmen thriving in the confusion severely damages their credibility in the long run. Social media may have democratized and relativized truth, but it also degraded “truth” into a ubiquitous weapon for various interests and opinions. (READ: How Facebook algorithms impact democracy)

Sometimes even the most seemingly real narratives of fear have ended up being proverbial cries of wolf. This is not to claim that Marawi may be a staged crisis but even a cursory awareness of both world and domestic history would cast enough doubt on martial law as a proportionate response.

Sovereign power has been abused too many times across history for the 21st century populace to take it seriously. Too many times have wars been fought from imagined explanations to even the most tangible tragedies.

A case in point would be America's invasion of Iraq as a reaction to the 9/11 bombing. Before that, America had secret wars in Indochina rationalized by the threat of communism. Much closer to home is the very first declaration of martial law being rationalized by a staged kidnapping of Juan Ponce Enrile.

Mindanao itself has been a zone of policy debacles and armed conflict especially in the cases of the Mamasapano massacre and the Zamboanga skirmish before it. Though the region remains to be a political puzzle to many, policymakers should strike a balance between harshness and restraint based on objective information.

Our own brown Robespierre may have captured voters’ imaginations with his crusade against drugs, a valid beast to slay. However, he has deflected scandals and error of his own through similar methods and mouthpieces as Trump. Trust is integral to the state’s legitimacy with its subjects, the people. Any state action should be seen as for the people’s interest. Acceptance of any martial law may be possible when trust and truth are restored in our discursive spaces. (READ: Martial Law, the dark chapter in Philippine history)

One start would be applying restraint and keeping some salt nearby when with computers and devices. – Rappler.com

Matthew Ordoñez is a part-time lecturer of the Department of Political Science at De La Salle University-Manila.

If his own defense secretary thought there was no need for martial law in dealing with the band of brigands and rebels that had forayed into Marawi, why did President Duterte impose it all the same, and not only in that city or in Lanao del Sur, the province in which it is situated, but in all of Mindanao?

The question may be perfectly sensible on the face of it, but it does not take into account Duterte’s character. Authoritarianism defines it, and his death-squad justice as mayor of Davao City for more than two decades affirmed it. Now, as president, he warns about ruling the entire nation by martial law.

And he has been quite consistent in his deviancy; the more than 7,000 dead linked to his war on drugs in the first 7 months of his 6-year presidency should alone prove his seriousness of sick purpose. A clinical report on him, if only we bother to refer to it every time we feel like giving him the benefit of the doubt, should set us right: 

Antisocial Narcissistic Personality Disorder [a condition characterized by] gross indifference, insensitivity, and self-centeredness...grandiose sense of self-entitlement and manipulative behaviors...pervasive tendency to...violate [others’] rights...

The report, made by Dr Natividad Dayan, former president of the International Council of Psychologists, went into the court records in 1998 and formed part of the basis for the annulment suit brought, and won, against Duterte by his wife.

Predictably, Duterte partisans have protested against raking up his old, domestic record and relating it to his presidency, as if to argue that time and situations could suddenly reform a man’s character and that, with Duterte precisely, the case has been one of schizophrenic renewal.   

If anything, the pathology that afflicts him could only have been intensified by his election as president. Indeed, no situation offers greater inspiration for self-entitlement and violation of others’ rights. For his invective and blasphemy, he has found prized targets in Barrack Obama and Pope Francis, among others, and he has an entire nation to patronize or punish.

Ferdinand Marcos is his professed idol, Ferdinand Jr, his anointed heir. And martial law is his avowed theme. It provided Marcos cover for his regime’s excesses as well as for the incapacities caused him by debilitating illness and surgeries. Given Duterte’s authoritarian predisposition and apparent frail health, how can things be different in his case?

When martial law came down in Mindanao, Duterte’s own plot went into motion, proceeding northward to the Visayas, then to Luzon, although, he said, only as necessary and on the advice of the military. Well, don’t be so easily taken with any hints at restraint or prudence. Duterte spoke more in character when, in the face of world criticisms of his war on drugs, he declared, “No one tells me, not even God!”

With Duterte, any deviation from form should raise an even higher level of alarm. His show of deference toward the army in particular should, again, provoke reference to his clinical record. The relevant diagnosis: “manipulative behaviors.”

His courtship of the soldiers began soon after taking office. He went on a nationwide tour of the camps, bearing promises of higher pay and more benefits – unfulfilled to date). In the thick of the Marawi fights he visited wounded troops and, in his own way of striking manly intimacy, told them probably one of the sickest jokes, if not the sickest, ever told by him or anyone else: “If you commit three rapes I will own them all!” The laughs he got, hopefully, were no more than polite.

At any rate, his defense secretary, Delfin Lorenzana, is not one known to laugh at such jokes or be patronized. In fact he has contradicted Duterte a few times, and done so publicly. He has disproved Duterte’s accusations of an insidious American arms buildup in the Philippines, defied his order to let the Chinese alone in the Philippine waters of the South China Sea by sending out patrols, and now, in effect, criticized martial law in Mindanao as an excessive measure.

Doubtless Duterte knows only too well that Lorenzana and his generals command the ultimate swing force and that without its support he is a toothless dictator. But where does it draw the line with him? – Rappler.com

Last May 26, after almost two years, the Supreme Court released its resolution on the status of the temporary restraining order (TRO) on contraceptive implants and the product registrations of all oral contraceptives.  

First, the TRO has not been lifted yet.

But the High Court did clarify its decision on a number of issues.

First, it clarified that the TRO only covers contraceptive implants, those rods that look like matchsticks inserted in a woman’s upper arm. Last Friday’s decision claims that the High Court never meant to impact all the processing of “the entire gamut of family planning supplies that have been declared as unquestionably non-abortifacient.”

However, it may be recalled that in the TRO issued last June 17, 2015, makes explicit mention that :

"respondents (DOH), their representatives, agents or other persons acting on their behalf from: [1] granting any and all pending applications for registration and/or recertification for reproductive products and supplies, including contraceptive drugs and devices; and [2] procuring selling, distributing, dispensing, or administering, advertising or promoting the hormonal contraceptive 'Implanon' and 'Implanon NXT'." (Read the Supreme Court resolution here)

It was this clause that led to the stock out of contraceptives in the market. Pharmaceutical companies had their hands tied. They could not issue product registrations (effectively, a license to sell) for existing contraceptive brands and could not register new brands.

This clause also prevented the Department of Health (DOH) from distributing or administering contraceptive implants – after the DOH, with a subsidy from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – procured hundreds of thousands of implants for distribution. Now, those implants, an estimated almost half a million units, are languishing in DOH warehouses and are scheduled to expire in 2018. (READ: When you run out of birth control pills)

Second, the resolution also set the parameters for which the petition of pro-life group Alliance for the Family and Foundation (ALFI) is to be heard. It was based on ALFI’s petition that the TRO was issued.

As DOH Secretary Paulyn Ubial said, “They (the Supreme Court) provided guidance to the DOH on how to proceed to implement the decision of the Supreme Court.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is mandated to conduct a public hearing on the implants to review the complaint of ALFI and give them their right to due process.

There are two points in the resolution that need to be emphasized:

• The procedure in the FDA does not require a trial-type hearing but may consider the opposition of the petitioners as well as the best scientific evidence available which it may obtain on its own.

A formal trial-type hearing is not even essential to due process. It is enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy and to present supporting evidence on which a fair decision can be based.

• After the final resolution by the Food and Drug Administration, any appeal should be to the Office of the President pursuant to Section 9 of E.O. No. 247. It modified the original judgment by requiring that any appeal from the FDA finding be made to the Office of the President rather than directly to the Court of Appeals.

Effectively, the review of ALFI’s claim that implants are abortifacients will be reviewed and heard with the FDA making the final decision on the matter.

While the ALFI may appeal the FDA decision – which they most likely will – the appeal will not go to the Court of Appeals. It will go to the Office of the President.

President Rodrigo Duterte is a strong supporter of family planning. Last January, he even signed an Executive Order calling for the full implementation of the Reproductive Health Law. It gives us reason to hope that an appeal elevated to the Office of the President will be decided in favor of lifting the TRO.

What does this tell us?

It took the Supreme Court close to two years to clarify its position on its TRO and during that time, drug stores were running out of contraceptives. Women were given no other explanation other than their preferred birth control was out of stock.

Because the idea of not having contraceptives available in the 21st century is outright ridiculous and incomprehensible, many women thought that it was just the usual “out of stock” issue – inconvenient and annoying but certainly temporary.

It was only when government agencies, civil society and various media outlets ran story after story of how contraceptives are disappearing from our shelves and may soon not be available to any person living in the Philippines did we start to realize how dire the situation is.

People were rightfully incredulous and outraged.

We need to sustain that outraged and that indignation.

Pro-life groups will continue trying to limit the implementation of the RH law and the availability of birth control options.

And well, it is their right to do so.

However, our institutions like the Supreme Court, the Department of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration are guided by science, rule of law, and human rights.

They are compelled to uphold and protect our constitutional right to health and that includes access to all forms of birth control.

We citizens need to remind these institutions that we are watching and waiting. We will protect and safeguard our right to access sexual reproductive health services. We trust them to do the same and will hold them accountable if they do not.

Last Friday, the same day the Supreme Court was released, women’s groups rallied in front of the Supreme Court and presented signatures of more than 300,000 men and women calling for the Supreme Court to lift its TRO on contraceptives.

Let us continue making our voices heard. Sign the petition calling for the Supreme Court to lift the TRO.

The fight isn’t over yet.  In many ways, what this debacle tells us is that, in many ways, it never will be. – Rappler.com

Ana P. Santos is Rappler’s sex and gender columnist and a Pulitzer Center grantee. In 2014, the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting awarded her the Persephone Miel fellowship to do a series of reports on Filipino migrant mothers in Dubai and Paris.

We don’t need videos from the government media arm mustering support for martial law, especially ungrammatical, cringe-inducing endeavors like this that insult animators and viewers’ intelligence alike.

We don't need fake photos that show Vietnam combatants passed off as Philippine soldiers from the Philippine News Agency. We don’t need fake photos showing Honduras police instead of the Philippine military from newly minted communications assistant secretary Mocha Uson.

We don't need fake news from the weaponized propaganda machine that media watchdog Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility says has an “all too tight connection to the President’s own communication team.”

We need reliable information and sensible calls to action. And we surely don’t need the comedy of errors that is the Presidential Communications Operations Office (PCOO).

Mindanaoans need timely guidance on what to do and how to cope with martial law in their backyard. Those in Luzon and the Visayas need to know exactly how to help their brothers in the South.

We need credible assessments on whether there is clear and present danger, and where it may lurk, not doublespeak on “ISIS footprint that doesn’t constitute clear ISIS presence.”

We need a government that speaks with one voice, not discordant squeaks from a chorus of officials who contradict each other.

We don’t need ridiculous theories on what terrorists can and cannot do that only reveal our officials’ ignorance of a virulent ideology that has ripped nations apart.

Difficult times call for efficient and timely government communication.

We need a government media agency that strategizes on key messages without losing sight of public interest and transparency. We do not need one that's actively plotting to control public opinion and silencing critics through bully tactics on social media.

We need a government media agency that clears the cobwebs, dispels the lies, and quiets the hysteria.

We don't need spin doctors who muzzle dissent with half-truths and character assasination. 

We don't need grandstanding bosses in the PCOO who do not respect freedom of the press and do not understand the complex relationship between state media and the free press.

We don't need a government media agency that teaches people to shoot the messenger and erodes trust in the brand of journalism that has brought down dictators, exposed the corrupt and helped rebuild democracy from the ashes of a dictatorship. We cannot be paying taxes for people who sell the idea that propaganda is public information.

As the President approaches his second year in office, he may well be advised to start with a clean slate when it comes to communications, as he is doing in many government agencies whose heads he has fired.

We need a government media agency that will not beat the drums of war – one that helps shape our best ideas, not our worst.

Mr President, dismantle this propaganda machine that not only stoked the flames of a highly divisive issue like martial law, but also empowered trolls, poisoned the well and singlehandedly lowered our collective IQ and EQ.

Start by firing the jokers in the bureaucracy –the Martin Andanars and their cohorts –  the inept, the unscrupulous and the unprincipled.

Give us a government media that doesn't spew out slogans, that helps with timely information, that helps build a nation that thinks and debates – which can only help you make smarter and better decisions. – Rappler.com

It is almost two weeks since fighting began in Marawi City and two weeks since martial law was declared in Mindanao.

And yet the people of Marawi continue to suffer. The crisis has entered its third week. A crisis that has caused the loss of lives, homes and has displaced hundreds of thousands of people.

As soon as I heard the news, I knew that there were those who would not appreciate someone who is not from Marawi or Mindanao for making comments.

To some extent this reaction is understandable. Mindanao has long been discriminated against by people in “imperial Manila”. Because it is farthest from the seat of power, because it is populated by religious and tribal minority groups, because it was but a few generations ago considered a frontier and underdeveloped place, it has had its share of being told what to do with itself by people who wanted only to benefit from disenfranchising Mindanao.

On the other hand, this reaction is counterproductive and illogical. First, not everyone in Mindanao is free from the kind of prejudices that have caused the problems in Mindanao. Not everyone is free from the bad habit of giving knee-jerk opinions. The converse is also true in that Filipinos from all parts of the country have compassion for Mindanao, an understanding of its realities, and the capacity to make correct recommendations.

Second, Mindanao is part of the Philippines and the declaration of martial law in Mindanao is a profound national event. Mindanao is indeed a part of the Philippines and all Filipinos are now called upon to extend their understanding and compassion to Marawi and its people. All of us must consider what martial law in Mindanao means for the whole nation.

I for one have taken some time to read and learn from the many discussions that this tragedy has evoked. I have given special attention to the voices from Marawi and Mindanao. Here is what I have learned and concluded.

Safety of ordinary citizens

This is the ongoing concern. Calls that oppose all military operations in Mindanao are unacceptable. The city is indeed under siege and military force is justified.

What we have is a humanitarian crisis in the making. By the fifth day of crisis, 80% of Marawi had evacuated. Many had the luxury of moving in with family in nearby Iligan City, but many more had to move into evacuation centers.

But the crisis is not due to the destruction directly caused by the terrorists. At this time the greatest cause of destruction is the military response, particularly the aerial bombings.

Over the past two weeks I have seen on social media heart-rending individual stories of Marawi residents. It is clear that they accept the need for government force but they are feeling that their lives, homes and communities are equally threatened by the bombings. Both citizens and community leaders are urging a stop to the bombings.

Part of the problem may be that our military does not have the necessary equipment that will allow accurate targeting of sites. This has caused widescale destruction. It has also caused the deaths of innocent people including our own soldiers.

Divided on proper level of force

It is not, however, merely the bombings in Marawi that are causing anxiety and debate. Even among Mindanawons, there is a difference of opinion as to whether martial law is the appropriate response. One of the earliest calls to reconsider the declaration of martial law is the Mindanao-based group Konsensya Dabaw. They raise the same concerns that many other groups have raised as to whether martial law for the entire Mindanao is the proper response. Among these is  the statement of 5 Ateneo University presidents across the country.

For one thing, Marawi is but a very small part of the whole of Mindanao. We have also been told repeatedly by the military that the situation is under control and that the Maute fighters in Marawi are not a huge force.

Both Konsensya Dabaw, the presidents of Ateneo and various other groups have reminded the nation of the nightmare experience that was martial law under Ferdinand Macos.

While it is true that Mindanawons say they feel safer because the military has been called, I for one need to ask whether this is an equally  worrisome situation because public safety and security is a police matter. For people to feel the need for military action implies that the government has failed in its promise to provide peace and security.

The Philippine Constitution (and that of most other countries) considers martial law as an extraordinary and grave remedy. It is a last resort. It is not meant to solve daily issues of peace and order. It is not meant to solve terrorist attacks. As some have pointed out, this is the first time that a terrorist attack has evoked a martial law response. A very similar situation was the MNLF attack in Zamboanga in 2013. This did not require martial law. More serious attacks in other countries such as the bombing of the twin towers in New York did not elicit a martial law declaration.

Duterte increases our anxieties

In a recent speech at the Ateneo, Chief Justice Sereno gave Filipinos a clear explanation of what we agreed upon when the nation ratified the current Constitution in 1987. She makes clear that it is within the rights of the President to declare martial law. But she also makes clear that because the country has suffered from the Marcos period, the framers of our Constitution put extra safeguards to ensure that history would not repeat itself.

She is clear that a repeat of the horrible past depends both upon the vigilance of people and the Duterte administration’s willingness "to take sufficient care to abide by the Constitution and the laws."

The statement made by the President that his martial law will be just like Marcos’ martial law and that it will be “harsh”; his condonation of rape committed by his soldiers (in Mindanao where we have the largest number of Muslims and indigenous peoples); and his statement that he has no intention of obeying the Supreme Court  – are causing more anxiety and resistance. These are in fact sufficient reasons to fear the political vendettas and massive human rights violations during the Marcos dictatorship. It contradicts his assurances that martial law is a necessary and judicious act that he undertakes without any thought of perpetuating himself in power.

It also does not help that the President has been threatening us with martial law, long before the troubles in Marawi. This makes it look like this incident has been used as a trigger for something he has always wanted to do. As Konsensya Dabaw notes: “Beginning March 2017, President Duterte has publicly talked about putting in effect martial law in Mindanao in order to ‘finish”’ all its problems.”

Congress fails the nation

In refusing to review he declaration of martial law, Congress has failed the nation.

It is not merely that they are now in violation of their Constitutional duty. Any constitutional expert worth their name will tell you that the Constitution is unequivocal that the President must report to Congress within 48 hours and that Congress must convene in order review the proclamation of martial law.

It is also that the people are divided on this issue and fearful. The review process, if done with integrity would have helped allay people’s fears or could have given critical feedback to the Duterte administration about how to handle the threats in Marawi and Mindanao.

Instead, Congress has shown itself to be overly compliant. A group who have no concept of the checks and balances mandated by the Constitution. They have chosen political expediency over their duty to serve us with integrity. This Congress is so much like the rubber stamp legislatures of the Marcos dictatorship. They are adding to the fear and insecurity instead of helping allay it.

Sacrificing present for future

No one can disagree that deep systematic and structural issues are at the root of the security problems that beset the nation and particularly Mindanao.

People-centered and equitable development of Mindanao are the real and final solutions to these problems. But this cannot be achieved without basic values like respect, tolerance, religious freedoms, freedom of expression and dissent.

The bombings in Marawi and martial law are at cross purposes to these goals.

If Congress and the Duterte administration will not practice restraint then it falls once again to the people to ensure that the rule of law and rights be ensured in this period of fear and anxiety.

The suffering of the people of Marawi and the declaration of martial law in Mindanao are matters of grave national concern. All of us must take the time to be properly informed. We must be able to debate each other and accept political differences.

At the moment the well-being of our nation is at peril and we must rely on each other’s wisdom to ensure the survival of our democracy.– Rappler.com 

"Coal is dead,” said Jim Barry, the global head of BlackRock's infrastructure investment group, in a recent interview with Australia’s Financial Review, joining a long line of major global players refusing to touch long-life coal assets. 

“That's not to say all the coal plants are going to shut tomorrow,” continued Barry, “but anyone who's looking to take beyond a ten-year view on coal is gambling very significantly."

As the world's largest investment group with $US5 trillion of assets under management, BlackRock’s public stance will reverberate around the world, not least in the Philippines.

That’s because, as of March 2017, the Philippines had 3,945 megawatts (MW) of coal committed up to 2020 and 10,423 MW of coal projects initiated up to 2025. 

The Philippine purchase power agreements (PPAs) on coal fired power plants is 20 years. This is well beyond the 10-year view international investors are warning against. 

Because the country produces only low-quality coal – which must be burned in larger amounts than higher-quality coal – and because the coal-fired power plants are built for imported coal, the Philippines relies on importing coal from abroad. 

The Philippines imported a total of 20.79 million tons of coal in 2016, a year-on-year rise of 47.8%, with 70% coming from Indonesia, followed by Australia. Demand for imported coal may rise by two million tons per year until 2020. 

In 2016, that meant we spent more than more than $1 billion (PHP 50 billion) on importing coal.  

This will be propelled by the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement signed in February 2009, in which the Philippines' import levy on Australian coal was mandated to decrease to 5% in 2012 from 7%, and is set to fall to zero by 2018. 

The simple and unfortunate reality is that with new coal fired power plants such as the 1,200 MW coal-fired power plant promoted by Meralco PowerGen Corporation (MGen) being planned, the Philippines will be further reliant on yet more imports.

An important question both government and the private sector need to answer is can a new thermal coal plant being built now or in the next few years, and which would be dispatched in 10 to 15 years’ time, compete with new cheap solar and batteries? 

For BlackRock, the answer is no.

The previous mentality around renewable energy, that it was expensive and "all about subsidies," has now been "turned on its head" as prices, particularly in solar energy, had fallen, Barry said. 

"The thing that has changed fundamentally the whole picture,” he explained, “is that renewables have gotten so cheap.”

Just take the example of India, where the government has pledged to end expansive coal imports. India is on track to construct a remarkable 275 GW of renewable energy by 2027. This month, costs for solar hit another record low, dropping a remarkable 45% since January 2016 when India’s last solar record low was set. 

In the past few weeks alone, multiple major new coal plant proposals in India have been shelved for the simple reason they can no longer compete on price.

While the price of renewables continues to plummet, the cost of coal finance will increase.

However, the Philippines is lagging behind the rest of the world when it comes to acknowledging risk in the cost of capital. Whilst finance for coal plants may be available at an artificially low cost today, the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) and the Department of Energy (DOE) and must realize that least cost is not a static concept. 

In the world of finance, contrary to popular belief, the tipping point is not when solar and batteries are cheaper than coal, it is when investors see the writing on the wall.  

That time is now. 

For the Philippines, we have an opportunity today to reduce our reliance on foreign coal, and to ride the investment boom in clean energy. (READ: Coal-minded leaders left behind by green energy growth - Al Gore)

While the death of coal may not happen overnight, the sun is setting fast and we do not want to be left in the dark.– Rappler.com

Sara Jane Ahmed is an energy finance analyst of the US-based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. She is a former investment advisor specializing in originating and structuring energy opportunities in emerging markets. 

There is something about the youth of Marawi City that makes one feel optimistic about the future.

Here is a vibrant youth population that intimately knows the city’s potential and the many challenges that can possibly keep the city from realizing it, and it is this knowledge that has proven to be an advantage for those who want to make a difference. 

When news broke about the clash in Marawi City, it hardly meant anything for some people until martial law was declared in Mindanao. But to the youth of Marawi City, it meant a postponement of plans and delayed developments.

Graduation had to wait for some students of Marawi City, as a number of professors are yet to give final grades. Ceremonies had to be rescheduled to a much later – maybe even tentative – date. Some students are yet to find out when their first day of classes will be, given the unpredictability of the situation in the city. 

Young professionals had to put their lives on hold, some put their careers on the backburner, and others reassessed their priorities. The life that was once carefully planned in preparation for a promising future has now taken a sudden turn, and now one must make room for adjustments due to these unforeseen events.

Just two months ago, the Office on Bangsamoro Youth Affairs of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao held a youth congress in Lanao del Sur at the Marawi Campus of Mindanao State University. There we met hundreds of promising student leaders from across the province, including those who proposed solutions to some of Marawi City’s most pressing problems, ranging from waste segregation, to underemployment, to terrorism.

Rebuilding the city

While it is now difficult to imagine what the youth of Marawi City will be coming home to, it is not hard to imagine that they will be at the forefront of rebuilding and bringing life back to the city.

The relentless optimism and tireless commitment they have shown in improving the quality of life of their people will now be tested by the dire conditions they unfortunately have to face. But we are confident that the youth of Marawi City will not only be the hope of their people, but that they will also be the driving force towards the city’s healing and recovery.

This, of course, cannot be done by the youth of Marawi City alone. This is where our long-term commitment as a nation to helping the people of Marawi will ultimately be tested – a commitment that goes beyond providing relief and quick fixes. The healing and recovery of Marawi City will require a constant effort from all of us to reach out and provide assistance in various aspects of reparation and rebuilding, and will demand a sincere effort to learn about the city’s history so we can help direct its future in a manner that is relevant and meaningful to the people of Marawi themselves.

We must unite and act together with the people of Marawi, especially with the youth that has never faltered in working for the betterment of their city and their country. We must lend ourselves to the people of Marawi and include them in the future we imagine for ourselves, for despite all our differences we share the same nation and its promise for the future.

We must constantly seek ways to reach out to the people of Marawi, especially to the youth whose pride and passion will definitely determine the future of the city they call home. – Rappler.com

Amir Mawallil is the executive director of the Office on Bangsamoro Youth Affairs of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.

Back when I was doing the Davao and Cagayan de Oro part of field research for my dissertation, I would visit my family in Ozamiz City to take a break, come up for fresh air and savor some of that long-yearned breakfast of puto maya, mangoes, and sikowate.

I would take Bachelor Express’ slower “stationery” service (this English word is wonderfully indigenized to mean, the bus stops on every town bus terminal – hence “station” to “station,” as if one were making the “Station of the Cross” in church), and made sure I have enough time to go down to have my painit (snacks) of pan de monggo and kape barako from Bukidnon at the old Iligan terminal.

The other reason why I stopped at the Iligan terminal was I wanted to buy a kilo or two of  baboy sulop for the family. The wild boar’s meat was being sold in a small stall beside the terminal, owned by a Maranao who declared me his favorite aki after I bought the meat from him a couple of times.

We always started our malangas na inakola (friendly haggling) over the price, and in my vain effort to bring the price down, I’d rib him in Bisayan, “Aki, nganong namaligya ka man anang baboy sulop nga haram man na.” 

He was ready for that and would push back: “Aki, ang ingon sa Koran dili ka maka-kaon ug baboy. Pero wa mi-ingon ang Koran nga dili ko makabaligya ug baboy!” 

(I would hear about these similar naught asides all over Southeast Asia. In Indonesia, Muslim friends of mine would rationalize drinking beers with me by saying that the Koran said do not get drunk. “So I can drink, Pak, as long as I do not get drunk. Which I never am!”)

This exchange would go back and forth until the bus conductor called on passengers to go back to the bus so it could head to Kolambugan, cross Panguil Bay and be in Ozamiz before dark. I’d buy 4 kilos of the meat, and ask the owner’s permission to leave (“modas ako, aki”): a Maranao way of respectfully saying goodbye to a friend.

I never thought much of those conversations with my suki, since I grew up in a town where the presence of “smuggled goods” was part of the everyday life of all sorts of people, including the Maranaos. 

“You need to get some top quality Indonesian malong? Go to the mercado (marketplace). How about some bubble-gum tasting cheap Chinese toothpaste and the favorite Ma Ling (the Chinese version of spam)? You will find them at the mercado! Cadbury Chocolates and umbrellas from Singapore? Of course, at the mercado! And what about guns? Well…you can find that someplace else but it’s also near the mercado.” 

Extensive network

I always thought this network was only particular to the Lanao del Norte, Lanao del Sur and Misamis Occidental grid until around 2008 when I found myself in the barter trade center in Zamboanga City. The Tausug vendor offered me cheap Chinese Viagra (P600 pesos lang, sir, at discounted pa!!) and a box of Malaysian Alicafe 5 in 1 Instant Coffee as freebie. I demurred, telling her that I knew it was fake as I’ve seen a lot of it in Quiapo. 

She immediately assured me that this “Viagra” was tested and seen to have no negative effect. And what proof did she have? She pointed to a group of American soldiers who were then in Zamboanga assisting Philippine troops going after the Abu Sayyaf kidnap gang. And with a smile, she asked: “Ano pang ebidensya gusto mo, sir?” I ended up just buying the Malaysian coffee and a pirated DVD set of all the 5 seasons of The Sopranos. No Chinese “Viagra”  (or was it Viagro?).

The DVDs were of good quality, and I remembered that one can also get similar films outside GeeGee’s movie theater in Ozamiz, in Cebu City’s busy Carbon district, and at Metrowalk in Pasig City. Moro women run these mini-marts and you wonder how powerful they are as you watch them order young boys all over to quietly approach potential buyers (DVD! Palit ka ug DVD, aki?) and serve as lookouts in case police raided these places. 

That was when I realized the one other enduring admirable trait of Filipino Muslims – the value they place on the commodities they sell. 

This knack at peddling these illegal consumer products  is something that  Manila’s “nattering nabobs of negativism” (Spiro Agnew’s famous description of the media) know very little when sharing their speculations and conjectures about Marawi to clueless anchors and talk show hosts. 

The Filipino ummah is not only a community of devoted followers of Islam. It is also a hub in what I think is a nationwide network of traders of illicit goods. The Moro world is not just a region of hijabs and imams. It is a vibrant and complicated network that extends from Borneo to Baguio. And these communities will passionately defend their trade as well as the relationships that bind it. 

Brainwashing won't prosper

I am certain that if these fundamentalist thugs get the chance to consolidate their presence by establishing their offices in Marawi and environs, these centers of fundamentalist brainwashing will never prosper. The first to shoot at them will be the leaders of this smuggling network and the communities it serves.

It is therefore prudent for those involved in eliminating the Maute gang to keep this other talent of Filipino-Muslims in mind. The best way to get Maranaos suspicious of the state (more so now after the discovery of the dead bodies of civilians who went through army checkpoints) over to your side is to promise that once the Matue gang is gone, the trading will be restored.  With these gangsters eliminated then it will be back to the business of selling Ma-Ling, Singapore umbrellas, malong, pirated DVD, Chinese Viagra, drugs and the occasional weapon in Marawi and in other towns in the Lanao del Sur-North Cotabato-Sharif Kabungsuan border. 

And no matter how much the army or police consider these illegal, they will just have to swallow their pride and let it flourish again. For it is this trade that kept Marawi peaceful for a very long time, since the MNLF attacked the Mindanao State University campus in 1975.

Business will eventually prevail over fundamentalist garbage, and push it out of these trading zones. – Rappler.com

Patricio Abinales misses baboy sulop and his Maranao aki. 

(UPDATED) One after the other, the two houses of Congress have issued resolutions manifesting support for President Rodrigo Duterte's declaration of martial law in Mindanao. There was Senate Resolution Number 388 on May 30, and House Resolution Number 1050 the following. Both resolutions expressly say lawmakers won't revoke the declaration. 

Legislative resolutions, however, are mere expressions of collective sentiment or opinion, and do not have any effect or legal consequence. Under the Constitution, to validate or revoke a martial law declaration, both the Senate and House of Representatives must convene and vote jointly there, not separately.

Congress’ refusal to convene is a mystery to many. If indeed the President has a “supermajority” in Congress, as duly demonstrated by the swift passage of the two resolutions, why not just convene and validate his martial law properly? Why not give Duterte’s critics a “show” and disprove them by sticking to the procedure in the Constitution?

One of the strongest and most convincing theories is that this could be strategic. It is meant to buy time and prevent the Supreme Court from immediately intervening and reviewing the President’s declaration. While the President is sure of Congress’ loyalty, the Supreme Court is an unknown terrain to him. A Supreme Court case on his martial law declaration – three have been filed just within this week – is a battle even the President is not sure to win. For a pragmatist and Machiavellian, President Duterte does not want to be in this battle.

READ:
Opposition lawmakers want SC to nullify martial law
De Lima, lawyers petition SC to compel Congress to convene on martial law
Ex-senator, bishops file 3rd petition on martial law before SC

This apprehension could have been fed by subtle messages emanating from Padre Faura after his Proclamation Number 216 was issued. The first hour the next day, the Supreme Court, through the Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, issued a directive to all courts in Mindanao to remain open and for all judges to remain in station. With this message, the Supreme Court made its presence felt, subtly asserting not only its judicial powers in the time of martial rule, but its powers to put the President in check.

Two days after, on May 26, Chief Justice Sereno reminded graduates of the Ateneo de Manila University that, while “martial law power is an immense power that can be used for good,” it “can result in oppression” when abused – an obvious reference to Duterte’s martial law.

But can the Supreme Court be prevented from intervening by Congress’ refusal to convene?

Under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Fortun vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GR Number 190293, March 20, 2012), Congress’ power to review a martial law declaration takes precedence over the High Court's own review. This means while both branches of government have jurisdiction to review the President’s martial declaration, the Supreme Court has to allow Congress to exercise its own review powers first, before it can get into the picture. This sequence in the exercise of reviewing powers is necessary to prevent the scenario where both of them concurrently review a single martial proclamation and possibly ending up with opposing conclusions. In that case, which branch prevails?

Congress not convening would therefore mean confusion on the part of those who intend to go up before the Supreme Court. Should they first file a mandamus petition before the Supreme Court to compel Congress to convene, and wait for it to act, before it can properly assail the President’s martial law declaration before the SC?

Definitely, a mandamus petition is another layer of legal complication that can hamper any move to question the proclamation. In its own, it is already a complicated legal issue on whether the Supreme Court can mandamus or compel to act a co-equal body like Congress. This kind of case may also take time.

But it can be argued as well that Congress’ nonfeasance would be tantamount to a waiver of its priority in favor of the Supreme Court. Even the ruling in the Fortun case reinforces this, with the Supreme Court saying that it can step in immediately as an exception when Congress defaults, procrastinates, or altogether fails to fulfil its duty. It can be further argued that with the House’s and Senate’s resolutions, Congress did all three: defaulted, procrastinated, and failed on their duty. This would mean that those who want to go up to the Supreme Court can go through this route following this exception.

While the Supreme Court has the power to review the sufficiency of martial law’s factual basis, this is not a carte blanche authority for it to meddle in the territory of national defense. The High Court may be tasked to audit the power of the President; at the end of the day, the President is still the commander-in-chief in charge of defending the state from threats of invasion and rebellion. He will always be at a better vantage point in appreciating threats and in calibrating the appropriate response than the justices sitting in their salas in Padre Faura. With this, it is logical, even necessary, that he must be given the widest latitude in dealing with the matter.

This, however, is not a license for the President to do whatever he pleases. There has to be a balance, and it has to be stricken somewhere. To safeguard this balance is precisely the point of the review powers of both Congress and the Supreme Court: to make sure that, while full and immense state powers are momentarily in his hands, he acts within his constitutional limits. The problem is when these checking mechanisms fail as what we witness now.

As cases are filed one after another before the SC, the government will surely raise the rule on precedence; the petitioners, the exception. Ultimately, the fate of Duterte’s Proclamation Number 216 – and this country’s too – will fall in the hands of the Supreme Court. Along the way, its resolve will be tried and its independence tested. All eyes will be watching, the High Court being literally the last checking mechanism still standing, after Congress rendered itself inutile and buried its head in the sand. – Rappler.com 

Emil Marañon III is an election lawyer who served as chief of staff of former Comelec Chairman Sixto Brillantes Jr. He completed his LLM in Human Rights, Conflict and Justice at SOAS, University of London, as a Chevening scholar. 

Crossover sa kalsada.

Eurostep sa grocery. 

Slam dunk sa iskinita.

Shadow dribble sa library.

Para sa tropa mong ankle breaker.

#FridayFeels is a cartoon series by the Rappler Creatives Team. Cathartic, light, but relevant, it's a welcome break from your heavy news feed! You can pitch illustration ideas by sending a message to the Rappler Facebook page.