spot_img
28.4 C
Philippines
Friday, March 29, 2024

SC urged to dismiss plea on ML issue

- Advertisement -

THE Office of the Solicitor General on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to dismiss consolidated petitions seeking to compel the Senate and the House of Representatives to hold a joint session to review President Rodrigo Duterte’s Proclamation No. 216 placing Mindanao under martial law.

In a comment, Solicitor General Jose Calida said the petitions filed by separate groups led by former senators Rene Saguisag and Wigberto Tañada should be dismissed for lack of merit.

Calida said Congress is not required to convene in joint session to support a martial law declaration under Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution.

Solicitor General Jose Calida

“A plain reading of the Constitution will readily illustrate that it does not impose a duty upon Congress to convene in joint session to determine the validity of the declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It is only in cases of revocation or extension of the proclamation or suspension that Congress is required to vote jointly,” the chief state lawyer added.

“Verily, there is no need to vote jointly to approve or affirm something which is already in full force or effect. Joint voting is only mandatory when the action is revocation or extension,” Calida said.

- Advertisement -

Calida also explained that the Constitution does not require any action from Congress upon the proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

According to the Solicitor General, the move of the House of Representatives and Senate to issue Resolutions 1050 and Resolution 388, respectively, to express support to the declaration of martial law in response to the report submitted by the President would suffice.

“While not mandatory, Congress neither procrastinated nor reneged on its sworn duties when it heard the basis of Proclamation No. 216 through a closed-door meeting with the country’s top military officials, and thereafter collectively voiced its support through the issuances of their respective resolutions. Indeed, the Congress even went beyond its constitutional duty respecting the proclamation or suspension,” he said.

“Thus the act of Congress to vote jointly is not mandatory when the action taken is to affirm or express support to the proclamation or suspension,” the chief state lawyer said.

He also argued that the Supreme Court has no power to issue the mandamus sought by petitioners, citing the separation of powers of the judiciary and the legislature as coequal branches.

Earlier, the Court heard in oral arguments in three other consolidated petitions filed by opposition lawmakers led by Lagman, local Mindanao leaders led by lumad leader Eufemia Campos Cullamat and a group of women from Marawi led by Norkaya Mohamad seeking to strike down Proclamation No. 216.

The tribunal, which is required by the Constitution to resolve petitioners against martial law within 30 days from filing, is set to rule on these petitions on July 4.

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles