THE Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of President Rodrigo Duterte’s declaration of martial law in Mindanao and his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus there after Maute group terrorists overran Marawi City on May 23.
Voting 11-3-1, the justices voted to dismiss the consolidated petitions filed by opposition lawmakers led by Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, local Mindanao leaders led by lumad leader Eufemia Campos Cullamat and a group of women from Marawi led by Norkaya Mohamad for lack of merit.
“The Court dismissed the petitions by a vote of 11 of its members; three members voted to partially grant the petitions and one member voted to grant the petitions,” Court spokesman Theodore Te said.
“All 15 Justices have circulated their respective opinions, whether concurring or dissenting. All opinions will be finalized and submitted by tomorrow,” he added.
The Court provided no other details of the decision.
The decision came within the 30-day period required by the Constitution to resolve petitions against a martial law proclamation.
The ruling affirms that Duterte’s Proclamation 216 declaring martial law in Mindanao complied with Article VII, Section 18 of the Constitution, which provides that the President may declare martial law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus only “in case of invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it.”
Solicitor General Jose Calida, who spoke on behalf of the government during the oral arguments, lauded the ruling, saying that it “underscores the existence of a real and present rebellion” in Mindanao.
“I am grateful to the magistrates of the honorable Supreme Court for allowing President Duterte to perform his prime duty of protecting the Filipino people. As the conscience of our nation, the Supreme Court did not sit idly to watch our country get dismembered,” Calida said.
He added that the decision showed the Court was one with the President in protecting and defending the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
In seeking the dismissal of the petitions, Calida asked the Court to give Duterte the chance to perform his constitutional mandate of protecting the people.
“The Constitution declares in no uncertain terms that the prime duty of the government is to protect the people,” Calida said in a memo submitted to the Court.
Calida argued that the magnitude and scope of the rebellion, and how it has endangered public safety in the entire Mindanao region, validates the need for the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
He said that 20 terrorist groups in Mindanao with similar ties with the Islamic State (ISIS) apart from the Maute group have already launched attacks in Basilan, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, Zamboanga and Davao and its main objective is to remove the whole Mindanao from its allegiance to the Philippine government.
Calida also revealed that there were already 43 violent attacks by the terror cells consisting mostly of improvised explosive devices (IED), harassment and kidnappings.
“In faithful compliance with this duty, President Duterte saw it fit to exercise his constitutional power to declare martial law,” he said.
During oral arguments from June 13 to 15, petitioners asked the Supreme Court to void the martial law declaration and argued that there was no sufficient factual basis to justify military rule.
The petitioners branded as “inaccurate, simulated, false and hyperbolic” the facts contained in Proclamation No. 216 and the report submitted by the President to the Senate and House of Representatives justifying the imposition of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
They also claimed that Proclamation No. 216 was “flawed” as it was imposed without consultation and recommendation from officials of the Department of National Defense or the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
In their petition to the court, the opposition lawmakers warned martial law would open the door to repression and atrocities seen during the 20-year rule of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos that ended with a “People Power” revolution in 1986.
During the Marcos dictatorship, thousands of suspected communist and Muslim insurgents, as well as his critics, were jailed, tortured or killed, according to historians.
When Duterte announced martial law, he praised Marcos’ version while vowing his own would be “harsh.”
Under the Constitution drawn up to prevent a repeat of Marcos-era abuses, the President is allowed to declare martial law only to prevent “invasion or rebellion.”
It is limited initially to 60 days. If Duterte wants to extend, he must get congressional approval.
As part of his martial law measures, Duterte allowed security forces to detain suspects for up to three days without prior court orders.
The government has said it has detained 66 people using these martial law powers for their links to the Marawi conflict, including the parents of brothers who are key militant leaders.
Duterte had repeatedly threatened to ignore the findings of the Court if it ruled against him, vowing only to listen to the recommendations of the military.
“They are not soldiers. They do not know what is happening on the ground,” Duterte said of the Supreme Court justices, as he also threatened to put martial law critics in jail.
Duterte on Monday warned martial law could continue beyond 60 days.
“I urge you to remain steadfast and alert as martial law in Mindanao will remain in effect to counter the persistent threat of terrorism and insurgency,” he told troops. With AFP