Why Philippines’ Duterte needs a lighter touch, not martial law, to end militancy in Mindanao

According to Philippine Solicitor General Jose Calida, both Indonesians and Malaysians are involved in the conflict in the country’s southern division of Mindanao. So great is the threat that President Rodrigo Duterte has declared two months of martial law in Mindanao in response to an insurgency led by Isnilon Hapilon – an internationally wanted fugitive and the former leader of recognised terrorist group Abu Sayyaf.

Why Duterte’s US split could help Islamic State rise in the Philippines

But Islamic militancy in the Philippines is unlikely to be ended by the introduction of martial law. Instead, law-abiding citizens look set to bear the brunt of inevitable democratic infringements and, contrary to the intended result, martial law is likely to fan the flames of home-grown Islamist extremism.

Martial law replaces civilian government with armed forces, granting increased powers to military personnel in the absence of habeas corpus – the right to be brought before a court in protection against arbitrary and wrongful arrests and detention.

Under martial law – which, according to the Philippine constitution, may last for 60 days before legislative approval is required for extension – citizens may be held without evidence and based solely on suspicion, as well as be tried in military tribunals rather than traditional courts of law.

In the words of Duterte himself, soldiers may “arrest any person, search any house”. But there are limits to martial law from which no derogation is permitted even under states of emergency.