Malacañang has expressed optimism that the extension of martial law in Mindanao will stand any legal challenge before the Supreme Court, Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra said Monday.
He said he believed the high court would dismiss the petition to be filed by several opposition lawmakers questioning the constitutionality of extending martial law in Mindanao up to December next year.
“For as long as the government can clearly show that there is factual basis for the further effectivity of martial law, I guess that petition [that will be filed] is bound to fail,” Guevarra told reporters.
“The job of the Supreme Court is to determine whether there is factual basis for the extension. I guess all the necessary facts [were]laid when the Office of the President explained this.”
Guevarra said the Palace had already laid down all the facts for the martial law extension in its request that was approved by Congress recently.
Rep. Edcel Lagman earlier revealed a plan to again question before the high court the latest martial law extension in Mindanao.
But Guevarra said the factual grounds for the declaration of martial law continued to exist in Mindanao.
“We have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the reports of our Armed Forces on the continued existence of rebellion and the requirement of public safety in Mindanao,” Guevarra said.
“For as long as the factual basis subsists, the DOJ supports the further extension of martial law in Mindanao.”
Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio echoed Guevarra, saying the plan to extend Proclamation 216 that placed Mindanao under martial law during the Marawi siege in May last year may be pursued as long as the requirements in the law were still being met.
He cited the Supreme Court’s decision in July last year that upheld the constitutionality of Duterte’s martial law declaration and the ruling in February that affirmed the one-year extension of the proclamation until end of this year.
In upholding Proclamation 216, the high court held that the requisites for the declaration of martial law were present in Mindanao, particularly the existence of a “real and present rebellion that threatens the lives of our fellow Filipinos in Mindanao, and their much-cherish liberties.”
The high court also allowed the one-year extension of the proclamation, saying the bases for the extension still existed as proven by the evidence submitted by the Armed Forces.
The Court also ruled that it had no power to review the decision of Congress to grant Duterte’s request for the one-year extension.
The Court said it could only step in once there was an arbitrary and improvident use of power by Congress under Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution, which it said was lacking in this case.