Testing the Waters of Martial Law

17 February 2010

By now, most of us must have known about the so-called “Morong 43” – a group of 43 doctors, nurses and health workers who have been arrested by the military and the police in a raid conducted in the early morning of Feb. 6 in Morong, Rizal. They remain in detention in Camp Capinpin. After initially refusing the court’s order to produce the 43, the military eventually brought them before the Court of Appeals for a writ of habeas corpus hearing. The government prosecutor immediately called for the termination of the hearing having complied with the writ, but the detainees’ lawyer, Atty. Romeo Capulong, argued that it is part of that hearing to determine whether the arrest was lawful or not. The judge allowed the defense to hear the testimony of one of the detainees, Dr. Alex Montes.

The military authorities claim that all the 43 are active and leading members of the NPA. They claim to have witnesses to back up their allegations. They also insist that the raiders found weapons and bomb-making paraphernalia in the bedrooms. The military has filed criminal charges for illegal possession of firearms especially during the gun-ban period and recommends no bail for all but 2. On the other hand, defense lawyers argue that the manner of search, arrest and detention violated due process and therefore, illegal. The court ordered both the government prosecutor and the defense to submit their respective memoranda.

Whether the arrested health workers are NPA members or not is initially beside the point and of lesser significance. What is at stake here and of transcendent importance is the nation’s legal system and the role of the judiciary in the midst of social conflicts. Is the legal system an effective means to execute justice fairly and impartially, or is it a tool susceptible to manipulation by forces having political and ideological motives? Is the judiciary run by magistrates who posses the ability, discernment and moral courage to put the law above politics and ideology, or do they form part of the government’s strategy against insurgency?

In so far as a government engaged in a total war against perceived enemies among its own citizens, the legal system and the judicial courts are components of this war. Its enemies are considered outside the ambit of society’s justice system and therefore should not seek protection from the law and equal consideration by justices. What may be patently illegal could be considered legitimate and justifiable in defense of the state. It simply brushes aside without compunctions all accusations of human rights violations and of impunity. Under the doctrine of national security, insurgents like the New People’s Army exist outside its legal and moral universe. Try observing the demeanor and facial expressions of the generals and their spokesmen and you’ll see what I mean. It’s not that they have no respect for the rule of law; rather, they believe they have proprietary rights over the law and can use it in any way they deem right.

At the other side, the law is regarded as guarantor of a social environment wherein players of different views and persuasions can engage each other in cooperation, confrontation or conflict without fear of discrimination and persecution for as long as they conduct themselves according to the rules prescribed in the legal and judicial system. For example, a member or supporter of the NPA who is caught in illegal possession of weapons should be rightly hailed in court for having committed a crime. But it would be a breach of his legal rights to be arrested for attending a class in community health care without the benefit of a warrant. In other words, the manner of search, arrest and detention should be in compliance with the law. The moment the law is perceived by the citizens to be partial, arbitrary and subject to manipulation by agents of the state, their trust and confidence in the legal and judicial system will be also undermined. Thus begins the breakdown of civil society.

But perhaps this is the hidden but real agenda of the Arroyo regime – the breaking down of the rule of law and its replacement with the rule of terror and brute violence, that is, martial law. The mighty have the right to rule over the weak ostensibly for their own good. The fate of the Morong 43 may well be the fate that awaits the whole nation in the coming months, the elections being simply a brief interlude before the storm. The people’s reaction to the Morong 43 may well be a test as to how people would receive a military takeover of a civil government.

Today is Ash Wednesday, the start of the Lenten Season. Let us reflect on these things in the spirit of Lent.