By Ben Rosario
Lawmakers on Monday chided Presidential spokesperson Salvador Panelo for touching a raw nerve among martial law victims when he defended the Marcos-imposed military rule as a means of “saving democracy.”
Albay 1st district Rep. Edcel Lagman
(FEDERICO CRUZ / MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO) Veteran opposition Rep. Edcel Lagman (LP, Albay) said Panelo got it wrong since instead of upholding democracy, martial law “derogates democracy with widespread repression and curtailment of civil liberties.” On the other hand, neophyte Bayan Muna Rep. Eufemia Cullamat and former Rep. Neri Colmenares said Panelo appeared to have acted as spokesman for the late President Marcos. "Yan din ang sabi ni Marcos noon (That is what Marcos said before). After thousands of deaths and arrests, Ferdinand Marcos who declared he was the savior of democracy was overthrown by the Filipino people. That is a lesson for future saviors of democracy pretenders," said Colmenares. Cullamat advised Panelo to review martial law history and know how the military rule declared in 1972 killed democracy. In a press statement on the eve of the 47th anniversary of Martial Law declaration by the late Marcos, Panelo defended Marcos’ 1972 decision. “Those who perceive that a declaration of martial law is antidemocratic is oblivious of the fact that its application is precisely the very tool to save the exercise of democracy,” the presidential spokesman stated. Lagman stressed that he does not share Panelo’s view about martial law. “It is a tool to arrogate power and impose military rule for contrived excuses,” explained Lagman. He pointed out that government abuses committed during martial law were so grave that the framers of the 1987 Constitution injected the Charter with limitations and safeguards should a president impose anew martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Under the new Constitution, the requisite factual basis for a president to declare emergency actions is “limited to “invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it.” Deleted is the alternative ground of “imminent” danger to the republic. The 1987 Constitution also limits the effective period of martial law “not exceeding sixty days” unless extended by the President and concurred upon Congress, Lagman explained.
Albay 1st district Rep. Edcel Lagman(FEDERICO CRUZ / MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO) Veteran opposition Rep. Edcel Lagman (LP, Albay) said Panelo got it wrong since instead of upholding democracy, martial law “derogates democracy with widespread repression and curtailment of civil liberties.” On the other hand, neophyte Bayan Muna Rep. Eufemia Cullamat and former Rep. Neri Colmenares said Panelo appeared to have acted as spokesman for the late President Marcos. "Yan din ang sabi ni Marcos noon (That is what Marcos said before). After thousands of deaths and arrests, Ferdinand Marcos who declared he was the savior of democracy was overthrown by the Filipino people. That is a lesson for future saviors of democracy pretenders," said Colmenares. Cullamat advised Panelo to review martial law history and know how the military rule declared in 1972 killed democracy. In a press statement on the eve of the 47th anniversary of Martial Law declaration by the late Marcos, Panelo defended Marcos’ 1972 decision. “Those who perceive that a declaration of martial law is antidemocratic is oblivious of the fact that its application is precisely the very tool to save the exercise of democracy,” the presidential spokesman stated. Lagman stressed that he does not share Panelo’s view about martial law. “It is a tool to arrogate power and impose military rule for contrived excuses,” explained Lagman. He pointed out that government abuses committed during martial law were so grave that the framers of the 1987 Constitution injected the Charter with limitations and safeguards should a president impose anew martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Under the new Constitution, the requisite factual basis for a president to declare emergency actions is “limited to “invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it.” Deleted is the alternative ground of “imminent” danger to the republic. The 1987 Constitution also limits the effective period of martial law “not exceeding sixty days” unless extended by the President and concurred upon Congress, Lagman explained.