September 21 paints a grim picture, especially for what's often called the martial law victims. I remember panicking back when I was 11 years old. It was possible that the late Fidel V. Ramos may declare martial law at any time. However, researching the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines can help. It can help Filipinos determine what needs to be revised to fit the current times.
Article VII Section 18 says the following about martial law:
SECTION 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without any need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with the invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.
Basically, martial law under the current constitution is still permissible when there's a need for it. The problem with the Marcos Years wasn't the declaration of martial law. Instead, it was the misuse of martial law. Misuse of something necessary doesn't call for its disuse. It's like if a doctor or a police officer doesn't do their job--healthcare and law enforcement aren't abolished. Instead, it would mean removing said person and checking out if there are any systemic problems. That is finding out if something is wrong with the whole organization instead of just parts of it.