The Supreme Court martial law ruling: Legal foundation for autocratic rule?

07 July 2017


Are we witnessing the early signs of the constitution’s evisceration? Did the Supreme Court lay the legal foundation for the undue expansion of Martial Law to other parts of the country? Have the seeds of authoritarianism been judicially planted?

And just like the criticism on the Supreme Court that legitimized dictator Ferdinand Marcos’ Martial Law regime in 1973, did the present Supreme Court make itself a willing partner emasculating our democratic institutions?

Read on…

10 Responses to The Supreme Court martial law ruling: Legal foundation for autocratic rule?

  1. July 8, 2017 at 11:17 am

    “The term is ‘abdication’” by Solita Collas-Monsod

  2. July 8, 2017 at 11:26 am

    “Voice of dissent assails ‘vague’ ML declaration” by Satur Ocampo

  3. July 8, 2017 at 11:29 am

    “One step forward, two steps back” by Ernesto P. Maceda, Jr.

  4. July 9, 2017 at 11:31 am

    “Landmark decision and opinions on ML” by Artemio Panganiban

  5. July 9, 2017 at 11:35 am

    “Judicial review of martial law” by Randy David

  6. July 9, 2017 at 5:17 pm
    boom buencamino

    “Such obeisance…is an abject abdication” is Carpio’s way of saying “naging mga tuta kayo”

    “Justices of the Court took an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution. Their oath of office does not state that they must trust the President when he declares martial law or suspends the privilege of the writ. On the contrary, paragraph 3, Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution expressly authorizes and specifically tasks the Court to review the judgment of the President as one of the two checking mechanisms on the President’s power to declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ. The 1987 Constitution would not have entrusted this specific review power to the Court if it intended the Justices to simply trust the judgment or wisdom of the President. Such obeisance to the President by the Court is an abject abdication of a solemn duty imposed by the Constitution.”

    • July 10, 2017 at 3:18 pm

      talaga naman. epic fail. as with congress.

  7. July 13, 2017 at 3:41 pm

    @JegoRagragio: “Justice Leonen’s fact-riddled, law-based dissent”

    “Leonen’s baseless anti-martial law dissent” by Oscar Franklin Tan

  8. July 17, 2017 at 9:40 am
    john c. jacinto

    This Supreme Court is even more pliant and servile than the SC that decided the ratification cases after Marcos declared ML in 1972. Very dangerous times indeed for our fledgling democracy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


follow @stuartsantiago on twitter

recent comments

  • © Angela Stuart-Santiago