THE Supreme Court said it found sufficient factual bases for President Rodrigo Duterte’s declaration of martial law in Mindanao, in a decision released Wednesday night.
The decision, written by Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo, dismissed the consolidated petitions seeking to nullify the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao, and instead declared Duterte’s Proclamation 216 as constitutional.
The tribunal said the ongoing rebellion by terrorists groups all over Mindanao justified the declaration of martial law, which it recognized as an executive act that gives the President the discretion on its scope.
The decision adopted by a majority of 11 justices rejected the claim of petitioners led by Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman that there was no rebellion, but only acts of terrorism and mere imminent danger, which would not suffice to meet the requirements for martial law declaration under Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution.
It also rejected the assertion of the petitioners that the armed conflict with Maute terrorist group was government-initiated and merely an “armed resistance by the Maute group to shield terrorist Isnilon Hapilon from capture,” saying such a claim was based on unverified news articles.
Instead, the Court sided with the argument of Solicitor General Jose Calida that the elements of rebellion—the raising of arms against the government and culpable purpose of removing allegiance from the government—were present in Mindanao.
The tribunal was also convinced that there were links between Maute and 20 other rebel groups like Abu Sayyaf and the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters, which have launched at least 43 attacks not just in Marawi but also in Basilan, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, Zamboanga and Davao.
“Considering the widespread atrocities in Mindanao and the links established among rebel groups, the armed uprising that was initially staged in Marawi cannot be justified as confined only to Marawi. The Court therefore will not simply disregard the events that happened during the Davao bombing, the Mamasapano massacre, the Zamboanga City siege, and the countless bombings in Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Sulu and Basilan, among others,” the Court said.
The Court was also unconvinced by the argument of petitioners that the martial law declaration should be voided because President Duterte supposedly did not consult defense and military officials in issuing the proclamation.
The tribunal pointed out that only the President has the vital intelligence and classified information that cloaks him with the power to decide whether to impose martial rule or not.
“The President’s duty to maintain peace and public safety is not limited only to the place where there is actual rebellion; it extends to other areas where the present hostilities are in danger of spilling over,” the Court said.
Besides, the Court ruled that while it is given the authority to review the factual basis of the martial law declaration, it has no power to revoke or extend such a proclamation as this is the exclusive power vested by the Constitution in Congress.
The Court also said there were sufficient constitutional safeguards against martial law abuses.
“The importance of martial law in the context of our society should outweigh one’s prejudices and apprehensions against it. The significance of martial law should not be undermined by unjustified fears and past experience,” the Court said.
The decision was released exactly on the last day of the 30-day deadline for the Court to resolve the petitions filed last June 5.
Ten magistrates—Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Teresita Leonardo – De Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Jose Mendoza, Bienvenido Reyes, Estela Perlas – Bernabe, Francis Jardeleza, Samuel Martires and Noel Tijam—concurred with the ruling.
Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa voted to partially grant the petitions.
According to them, while there was factual basis for declaration of martial law, it should be limited in scope and should have not covered entire Mindanao.
In her 51-page dissenting opinion, Sereno said martial law should only cover the provinces of Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao and Sulu.
She disagreed with the majority opinion that the discretion on the coverage of the martial law should be left to the President as it is an executive duty.
“Martial law is an extraordinary measure necessitating the exercise of extraordinary power. Nevertheless, the President, in the exercise of his commander-in-chief powers, does not have unbridled discretion as to when, where and how martial law is to be declared,” Sereno said.
Only Associate Justice Marvic Leonen voted to grant the petitions and declare the proclamation as invalid for lack of factual basis.
In his dissenting opinion, Leonen said the government failed to justify the necessity for declaration of martial law and why other powers of the President—including the power to call out the military—would not suffice to address the problem in Mindanao.
He said the respondents represented by Calida “failed to show what additional legal powers will be added by martial law except perhaps to potentially put on the shoulders of the Armed Forces of the Philippines the responsibilities and burdens of the entire civilian government over the entire Mindanao region.”
Leonen said the situation in Mindanao involves only “acts of terrorism which should be addresses in a decisive but more precise manner.”
Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon said President Duterte could not simply issue a new proclamation declaring martial law if Congress does not agree to extend it.
“The Constitution is clear that it is Congress that has the power to extend martial law and the President may only recommend,” Drilon said.
He cited Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, which provides that “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.”
That provision, according to Drilon, is one of the measures introduced in the Constitution “to provide a safeguard in the president’s exercise of martial law powers,” to prevent abuses that happened when martial law was declared during the Marcos regime.
He added that the same provision vests Congress with the power to determine the period of extension of martial law.
Advising the President to issue a new proclamation would be a circumvention of the Constitution, Drilon said.
“You cannot circumvent the Constitution. Let us not decieve e public.. Let us not try to go around with the Constitutional requirements. Let us respect the process,” Drilon said.
“What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly,” said Drilon, adding that doing so “would violate the principle of check and balance between the executive and Congress.”