The Supreme Court will soon decide on the petitions assailing the constitutionality of the third extension of martial law declaration in Mindanao.
This came after petitioners challenging the extension of Proclamation No. 216 for another year of until December 2019 and the government, through the Office of the Solicitor General, have submitted their respective memorandum to the SC on Monday following the one-day oral arguments on the case last Jan. 29.
With the submission of all arguments by parties, the Court has submitted the case for decision.
An SC insider revealed that the justices will include the case in their session next Tuesday and might be able to vote and decide on it by then.
In their memorandum, petitioners led by Albay 1st district Rep. Edcel Lagman reiterated their claim that there was no factual basis to justify the extension of martial law in Mindanao as required in the 1987 Constitution.
They argued that the attacks by terror groups and violent incidents that took place in Mindanao last year, including four bombings cited in the report of the Armed Forces, were acts of terrorism and not rebellion as required by law in the declaration of martial law.
“The following acts of terrorism and lawless violence mentioned in the letter dated 06 December 2018 of the President do not per se evince the existence of rebellion and the President failed to connect or relate said acts to rebellion or furtherance of rebellion,” the petitioners said.
“Terrorism is not equivalent to rebellion because they differ in motive, target and scope: While terrorism has the purpose of sowing fear and panic among the populace, rebellion is an armed uprising against the government for the culpable purpose of removing the country or a portion thereof from allegiance to the Republic or preventing the President or the Congress from exercising their respective powers,” their pleading read.
Despite the recent twin bombings in Jolo Cathedral in Sulu that killed at least 21 people, petitioners insisted that public safety in Mindanao is not imperiled.
Petitioners also reiterated that the Court may review the factual basis of martial law proclamation, which is a task specifically assigned by the Constitution to Congress.
“The Honorable Court cannot simply defer to the factual submission of the President because to do so is to defeat its precise jurisdiction to separately and independently determine the sufficiency of the factual basis of the President’s submission,” they said.
In seeking the dismissal of the petitions, Solicitor General Jose Calida cited several attacks attributed to the New People’s Army in Mindanao, which he stressed were clearly acts of rebellion.
Calida said the Jolo Cathedral bombing is proof of the ongoing threat to public safety in Mindanao posed by local terrorist groups.
The chief state lawyer also cited data from the Armed Forces that there are still 424 active members of Abu Sayyaf terrorist group in 138 barangays in Basilan, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi and Zamboanga; 264 members of Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters in 50 barangays; 59 members of Saulah Islamiyah; six members of Maguid Group; and 85 members of Turaifie Group.
He also reiterated the influx of foreign terrorists in the country “who are responsible for training of local terrorist fighters,” citing the entry of four foreign terrorist fighters last year while 60 others remain on AFP’s watchlist.
Calida also argued that the decision of Congress to approve the President’s request is beyond judicial review.
“Congress has the sole prerogative to extend the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The 1987 Constitution does not limit the period for which Congress can extend them, and prohibit the Congress from granting further extensions to the proclamation or suspension,” he said.
Calida also cited the High Court’s earlier ruling that upheld the previous extension of martial law, which held that there are sufficient legal safeguards against human rights abuses raised by petitioners.
With these arguments, he asked the Court to dismiss four similar petitions filed by opposition lawmakers led by Lagman, the Makabayan bloc led by Bayan Muna party-list rep. Carlos Isagani Zarate, the group led by former Commission on Elections chair Christian Monsod and the group of Lumad teachers and students represented by the Free Legal Assistance Group.
The SC had earlier upheld the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 216 in July 2017 and also upheld its initial one-year extension in Feb. last year.
The Court held that the extension had sufficient factual basis, as “the rebellion that spawned the Marawi incident persists.”
It said, “public safety requires the extension, as shown by facts presented by the [Armed Forces of the Philippines.”
The SC also said that the two Houses of the Congress has the “full discretionary authority” to promulgate its own rules, and the said power is exempt from judicial review and interference, “except on a clear showing of such arbitrary and improvident use of the power such as would constitute a denial of due process.”
The tribunal also noted that there is no provision under the Constitution that prescribes how many times the proclamation of martial law may be extended or how long the extended period may be.
Duterte first declared martial law in Mindanao in May 23, 2017 after the ISIS-inspired Maute group laid siege to Marawi City. Five months later, Duterte, in a rousing speech to his troops, announced the liberation of Marawi City.
But the AFP revealed that communist rebels continued their logistical buildup and extortionary activities, which he said hinder government development efforts.
