China is flexing its military muscles like never before. As things stand, there seems to be no end in sight to tensions in the South China Sea. In early March, Chinese vessels collided with a Philippine Coast Guard resupply boat, blasting it with water cannons that shattered its windshield and injured four Philippine Navy personnel. To assuage the apprehensions of the Filipino public, President Marcos vowed to continue defending the Philippines’ maritime territory. As the specter of war looms over the region, tensions may conceivably escalate and armed confrontations at sea are in the cards. 

No less than President Marcos himself declared, in an interview aired in Australia, that “the potential for outright conflict is much higher now than it was before.” Rumors of war, especially with a neighbor like China, could potentially morph into a national emergency in the Philippines. If so, this likely scenario poses risks to Philippine democracy. Foremost of which is the danger of executive aggrandizement that may result from giving the President vast emergency powers. Then, the curtailment of constitutional rights normally enjoyed and exercised in ordinary times. Ultimately, the declaration of martial law is the worst case scenario.

In the first place, the Philippines is no stranger to national emergencies. Natural disasters such as typhoons and earthquakes frequently wreak havoc on the archipelagic nation. The country also grappled with severe economic woes as recent as when the COVID-19 pandemic reached its shores. A “national emergency,” well-settled in Philippine jurisprudence, covers a wide range of situations: economic crises, natural disasters, rebellions or threats of external aggression. The Philippine Constitution provides for remedial measures to address such dire circumstances. For instance, it empowers the President to declare a state of national emergency. Congress, on the other hand, may enact laws that shall accord the President with emergency powers as well as direct the temporary takeover or operation of privately-owned public utilities and businesses affected with public interest.

This “temporary dictatorship,” as termed by John Stuart Mill, allows the Chief Executive to assume absolute power in cases of extreme necessity to avert the ruin and guarantee the survival of the State. Former Philippine Presidents had done so in the past. In 1989, Corazon Aquino declared a state of national emergency following a rebellion committed by a faction of the armed forces. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, Rodrigo Duterte likewise declared a state of public health emergency and calamity. Subsequently thereto, Congress by law gave Duterte emergency powers aimed at mitigating the pandemic. Duterte’s “militarized response,” however, resulted in the punitive enforcement of lockdowns and the arrest and detention of thousands of Filipinos for alleged violations of quarantine protocols.

In the same vein, the persisting territorial dispute in the South China Sea, as with any other national emergency in the past, is an opportune moment for President Marcos to seize more power through constitutional (and thus legal) means. After all, the further escalation of the dispute that may bring the country on the brink of war can be a sufficient reason for President Marcos to declare a state of national emergency. After which, Congress can bestow upon him vast emergency powers to avert any threat of external aggression. Public utilities and private businesses from telecommunications, transportation, to manufacturing and retail can be taken over by the state to ensure the country’s security or just in the guise of it. The exercise of emergency powers, however, can be subject to abuse. 

All the same, giving the President vast emergency powers can lead to the curtailment of constitutionally-protected rights. As in any vibrant and functional democracy, the official acts and policies of the government are open to criticism and usually attract dissent. In a state of national emergency and with an aggrandized executive, dissent can be easily silenced and the opposition can even be regarded as enemies of the state. The exercise of  basic liberties such as the freedom of speech and expression and the people’s right to information on matters of public concern can be heavily restricted and regulated. This will result in the lack of accountability of public officials and the absence of transparency of government transactions. The public, as a whole, will be kept in the dark. To be a good citizen in the worst of times, one must become docile and unquestioning. A good citizen is one who trusts that the government has the country’s best interests in mind.

When a brewing conflict with China materializes into a full-blown war, any reasonable President will declare martial law. This will be the ultimate death knell to democracy. To begin with, the constitution only allows the President to declare martial law in cases of actual invasion or rebellion and when public safety demands it. Further, the Philippines cannot legally start a war because its constitution expressly renounces war as a national policy. The Philippines, therefore, is always on the defensive. The only viable constitutional alternative to keep the country afloat when war breaks out is to declare martial law. This becomes a necessary measure even if it will come at the expense of democracy. 

While it is sensical to suspend democracy in times of war, as when Great Britain suspended the holding of elections during the Second World War, a war scare opens a rare window of opportunity for those who seek to prolong their tenure in office. Martial law, for instance, can last as long as the justification for its declaration such as an ensuing war remains. In such a case, President Marcos’ term of office will have an indefinite end. Else, the probability of war can be deliberately overstated to manipulate public opinion in favor of justifying martial law. The semblance of peace and order under a state of martial law is a security blanket for a war-anxious public.

Doubtless, the Philippines has long taken the moral high ground when it comes to dealing with the South China Sea dispute. Amidst China’s bullying and provocation, the Philippines has been doing its best to keep its cool and solve disputes through diplomatic and peaceful means. Warfare, after all, is not a viable option. But so long as the South China Sea dispute continues, Philippine democracy remains at risk.