AT least five parties have filed petitions before the Supreme Court against President Rodrigo Duterte’s declaration of martial law in Mindanao, which was triggered by the May 23 attack on Marawi City by Islamic State-inspired Maute group terrorists, who flew black ISIS flags over the city.
A military campaign to recapture the city has been hampered by the terrorists’ use of mosques.
At least 200 people, including soldiers, terrorists and civilians have been killed and more than 200,000 people have been displaced in the fighting that is entering its third week. Portions of the city that have been damaged by the fighting—including punishing air strikes—evoke images of war-torn cities in the Middle East.
Yet two of the petitions before the Supreme Court argue that there is no factual basis for the declaration of martial law because there is no rebellion or invasion, the only two valid reasons for imposing military rule under the 1987 Constitution.
It would seem self-evident that armed men seeking to wrest control of a city from the government were engaged in a rebellion—except to the self-proclaimed human rights advocates who have questioned the factual basis for martial law in Mindanao.
Three other petitions ask the Supreme Court to compel Congress to convene a joint session to debate President Duterte’s martial law declaration, arguing that this is what the Constitution mandates in Section 18 of Article VII.
A careful reading of the pertinent passage, however, reveals that this is not the case.
Section 18 reads: “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.”
Nowhere in the passage is there any admonition that a joint session is mandatory. Establishing the conditions for a repeal—Congress voting jointly and obtaining a vote of at least a majority of all its members—is not the same as saying that a joint session is mandatory. It merely states the conditions required for a repeal, suggested by the use of the word “may.”
Since both the House of Representatives and the Senate have already issued resolutions supporting the declaration of martial law, convening a joint session would be pointless, since Congress has shown it has no intention of revoking military rule.
Of course, it is the right of these petitioners to bring their case to the Supreme Court. But given the gravity of an ISIS incursion in Mindanao on one hand, and the questionable legal grounds for their challenges, we would have hoped for a stronger show of unity against the common enemy, even from the administration’s political opponents.
