Rising above its source

The spring cannot rise above its source.

The Supreme Court likes to cite this quotation, often attributed to American Christian pastor and author Aiden Wilson Tozer. The quote could play a significant role when the tribunal deliberates on petitions expected to be filed before the SC, challenging the constitutionality of the one-year extension of martial law all over Mindanao.

Several lawyers are citing the saying in arguing that if the Constitution limits the period for imposing martial law to 60 days, the extension cannot be longer than that period. And this is already the second consecutive extension, on top of the first one for a period of five months or over 150 days, until the end of 2017.

In the August 2016 ruling on Limkaichong v the Land Bank of the Philippines, the SC declared: “The spring cannot rise higher than its source. And just as a statute cannot be in variance with the Constitution, so too must the implementing rules conform to the language of the law. Rules and regulations cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law they seek to implement.”

Lawyers are pointing out that even if the Constitution is silent on the duration and number of consecutive extensions of martial law, the spirit of the 60-day limit cannot be circumvented. Otherwise, what’s to stop a president from extending martial law until the end of his term, and even beyond?

That spirit is not a mere fragment of critics’ imagination. It’s not called a “Freedom Constitution” for nothing; the basic law of our land was crafted with the wounds of Ferdinand Marcos’ martial law abuses still raw.

Safeguards were enshrined in this Constitution to prevent a return of that protracted martial law and the perpetuation of anyone in power. This was also the spirit that inspired the single-term limit for the president of the republic – the only official banned from seeking reelection.

Critics of Congress’ approval of the one-year extension have announced that they are preparing to take the battle to the SC. While the idea behind that quote on the spring and its source is part of Philippine jurisprudence, however, the SC has a malleable interpretation of constitutional issues. It might yet go along with Congress and Malacañang and approve what one critic has described as President Duterte’s “unli” martial law.

* * *

Filipinos should remember how each senator voted on this case, and the arguments of the lawmakers who opposed the one-year extension. Now seen as voices in the wilderness, this “super minority” could be hailed as vanguards of freedom in the near future.

Precedents are being set here. Rodrigo Duterte, as he often points out, is good for only six years, and he may be sincere in stressing that he does not intend to stay a moment longer in power beyond his single term. He and his security forces may not abuse military rule. But one day another chief executive could come along and invoke this precedent to perpetuate himself in power, backed by an endless extension of martial law.

The super majority in the House of Representatives and administration supporters in the Senate must remember that they are setting a precedent in their interpretation of the constitutional provisions governing the imposition of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

Justifying a martial law declaration that does not meet constitutional requirements can be used in the future by another president, and it could be for objectives that serve mainly personal rather than national interest.

The lawmakers have reassured the nation that they will closely monitor the implementation of the extended martial law to prevent abuses. There is also a chorus of reassurances that martial law will have no adverse impact on business and economic growth in Mindanao.

* * *

It does look like the business community wants to give the government the benefit of the doubt and go along with this experiment in using martial law against not just the Mautes, Abu Sayyaf and other Islamic extremists but also against communist rebels.

President Duterte has made no secret of his objective of using martial law against the Communist Party of the Philippines and its armed wing the New People’s Army. Now classified as terrorist organizations, the CPP and NPA don’t get much sympathy from those whose businesses have suffered from rebel extortion.

Anyone whose farm, bus or other private property has been torched by the NPA for refusing to pay “revolutionary taxes” will agree with the terrorist tag and will want the extortionists and even their sympathizers to be eradicated like the Mautes in Marawi. If it takes a year or two of martial law, so be it.

These victims of NPA “terrorism” will brush aside observations that the communists have been staging a rebellion for decades, but presidents after Marcos did not resort to martial law to confront the threat.

These victims will also shrug off fears, reinforced by Duterte himself, that martial law could be expanded nationwide since the NPA operates all over the country. Duterte did not rule out a nationwide coverage, if recommended by his security forces.

At this point, when Malacañang reassures the public that abuses will be avoided in the one-year extension, its best argument is the way the Armed Forces of the Philippines, backed by elite units of the Philippine National Police, have implemented martial law in Marawi and the rest of Mindanao.

As the recent credit rating upgrade of the country by Fitch Ratings indicated, neither the brutal drug war nor martial law in Mindanao shook investor confidence.

President Duterte tried talking with the communists, pleading with them to stop torching businesses and killing soldiers and police personnel. He appointed communists to his official family – the closest they could get to a coalition government, which is not possible under our system.

Yet the NPA arson, extortion, raids and killings continued. Now Duterte wants to try martial law.

* * *

A survey at this time will probably show public support for his move. It would be another expression of desperation, like public support for the bloody war against illegal drugs.

Only time will tell if martial law would be indispensable in this fight, or if simply calling out the armed forces – as provided in the Constitution – to suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion would be enough.

As A.W. Tozer wrote in The Root of the Righteous, “As water cannot rise higher than its source, so the moral quality in an act can never be higher than the motive that inspires it.”