Shades of martial law

For many Filipinos, we quietly observe today one of the darkest periods in our country’s history when it was placed under martial law rule 54 years ago. It began after the late president Ferdinand Marcos Sr. issued Proclamation 1081 that imposed the martial law rule all over the Philippines. It was immediately followed by the massive round up, arrest and detention in military jails of leading opposition leaders against the Marcos Sr. administration. 

Fast forward. The only son and namesake of the late president hurdled the fears foisted by their political enemies on the possible return of martial law rule should they return to power. President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. (PBBM) got elected into office in May 2022. We all could thank the framers of our 1987 Constitution that made it difficult to impose martial law rule anew in our country.

While indeed martial law is practically a dead letter law now in the Constitution, the opposition ranks are complaining that PBBM has been into “lawfare” to silence them. They point to a number of known anti-administration leaders who are either facing court cases or currently jailed for graft, plunder and/or criminal charges.

But presidential first cousin, former speaker Leyte Rep. Martin Romualdez, finally landed in jail last week for the flood control project scandal. At least eight alleged “cong-ractors” are currently being investigated by the ombudsman while three of them were charged before the Sandiganbayan.   

“I fear for my liberty,” Sen. Pia Cayetano declared last week to her Senate colleagues and to the public in general. These were her words on Sept. 16 during the 26th day of the ongoing impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. Sen. Pia deplored the “pressure” she has been feeling obviously since she joined the anti-administration bloc at the Senate.

 Sen. Pia, elder sister of Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, echoed her strong suspicions that their personal activities and movements are being closely monitored by the government. Being one of the senator-judges of the impeachment court, the “pressure” literally built up soon after she and her brother took an evening flight together for Singapore last Sept. 9.

Obviously, it was not a secret flight after their stolen shot photo at the airport went viral on social media. Still, it fueled speculations that Senator Alan’s sudden flight abroad might be related to the separate cases being looked into against him by the Office of the Ombudsman and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Subsequently, NBI Director Melvin Matibag assuaged the public that the Cayetanos will return to the Philippines and in fact, were scheduled to fly back by the weekend.        

The NBI has been digging up the 2019 Southeast Asian Games on the controversial P55-million cauldron project undertaken by the Philippine Southeast Asian Games Organizing Committee (PHISGOC). The NBI director announced last Friday that Sen. Alan Peter, who served as PHISGOC chairman during preparations for the SEA Games, is not among the 30 personalities that the NBI plans to subpoena at this stage. The ombudsman probe, on the other hand, is related to the questioned reclamation projects allegedly of the Cayetanos at the Laguna Lake within the jurisdiction of Taguig City.

Thus, the Cayetano brother-and-sister tandem feels more pressured than the rest of the remaining nine members of the Senate minority bloc. Meanwhile, another brother-and-sister tandem of Sens. Mark and Camille Villar, along with their other family members, are now being investigated also by the ombudsman for their family-run Prime Water. The Villars are also being investigated by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for their family-owned business empire’s alleged violations of the Securities Regulation Code.

A lawyer by profession, Sen. Pia also expressed fear for her right to speak.Unabashedly, she unburdened her fears in the presence of four retired members of the Supreme Court, two of whom were erstwhile Chief Justices (CJ) – Artemio Panganiban and Reynato Puno. Fellow retired SC associate justice Adolfo Azcuna, who was one of the 50-man framers of the 1987 Constitution, was also invited among the amici curiae at the Senate impeachment court.

Sen. Pia’s laments deserve a serious answer. 

It does not establish that anyone has threatened her unlawfully. But when a senator says she fears losing her freedom while performing her duties, the question reaches beyond personal anxiety. Can members of the chamber speak and vote without fearing that the machinery of investigation will be used to influence them?

Senators must answer legitimate allegations. They must also be free to question whether the law is being applied selectively. Those obligations belong together. Which brings us to Sens. Francis “Chiz” Escudero, Joel Villanueva and Panfilo “Ping” Lacson. In February, Lacson confirmed a draft Senate Blue Ribbon report recommending criminal charges against Escudero and Villanueva, alongside Sen. Jinggoy Estrada who is now detained in the Payatas, Quezon City Jail with co-accused in the flood control cases. 

Although the report lacked the signatures needed to reach the Senate plenary, Lacson publicly disclosed last May 5 a preliminary investigation involving both senators. After which Villanueva and Escudero, one after the other, joined the new majority that installed Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian. And the rest is history. Sen. Alan Peter is back again as Senate minority leader.  

Sen. Pia’s fear should neither confer immunity nor be treated as a confession. It should prompt the Senate to insist on a system in which liberty depends on evidence and law, and every senator remains free to speak and vote.The answer to “I fear for my liberty” must never become “then choose the right side.”

The minority’s claim of selective justice must be tested against records. Cases need not move at identical pace. But differences in evidence and procedure should explain their progress, rather than changes in political allegiance. 

No one should be prosecuted to prove a political point. If the evidence is insufficient, resolve the allegations fairly. If it warrants further action, pursue it regardless of alliances. While indeed “lawfare” is in the works, it still evokes shades of martial law.