THE Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered Malacañang and administrators of martial law in Mindanao to comment on the petition filed by opposition lawmakers in the House of Representatives seeking to nullify President Rodrigo Duterte’s declaration of military rule.
In its en banc session, the Court also set oral arguments on the petition on June 13, 14, and 15.
Respondents in the case, led by Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea and Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, were also told to submit their comments on the petition on or before Monday, June 12 at noon.
Before the oral arguments, lawyers from both sides must attend a preliminary conference on the case on the same day, at 2 p.m.
The Constitution allows the Supreme Court to the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, and must promulgate its decision within 30 days of the filing of a petition.
Solicitor General Jose Calida, who will act as counsel for the public respondents in this case, has played down the petition, saying he expects the Supreme Court to dismiss the case.
Calida said the claim by petitioners that there was no rebellion or invasion to justify the declaration of martial law was “a symptom of psychosis” and “detached from reality.”
Calida also disputed the petitioners’ argument that President Duterte acted alone in declaring martial law without the benefit of a recommendation from his Cabinet.
“Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the President’s declaration of martial law needs the recommendation or concurrence of the Defense secretary, or any Cabinet official,” he stressed.
In the petition filed last Monday, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman and six other congressmen asked the Court to exercise its power under the Constitution to review a President’s martial law declaration.
Petitioners argued, in a nutshell, that there was no factual basis to justify the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus.
They said the siege in Marawi is not rebellion or invasion, but rather an “armed resistance by the Maute group to shield Hapilon from capture, not to overrun Marawi and remove its allegiance from the republic.”
A group of lawyers on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to compel both the Senate and the House of Representatives to convene jointly to review President Duterte’s proclamation of martial law in Mindanao.
Unlike the first petition filed by the opposition lawmakers, which sought to nullify Proclamation No. 216, the second assailed the action of both Houses of Congress to issue separate resolutions expressing support for the martial law declaration in Mindanao following attacks by local terror group Maute in Marawi City last month.
The petitioners led by former senator Rene Saguisag asked the Court to compel the senators and congressmen to exercise their constitutional duty to hold a joint session to review the martial law declaration.
Saguisag was joined by former Commission on Elections chairman and constitutional commission member Christian Monsod, former party-list lawmaker Loretta Ann Rosales, detained Senator Leila de Lima, former PhilHealth director Alexander Padilla and law professor Rene Gorospe.
The petition also included a list of over 300 lawyers led by former solicitor general Florin Hilbay who signified their support.
Calida, meanwhile, earned the ire of the opposition bloc in the House of Representatives for branding its members as “rabble-rousers” and “psychotics” when they challenged the martial law declaration before the Supreme Court.
Lagman, the lead petitioner in the case before the Supreme Court, said those oppose the President’s martial law imposition in the entire Mindanao did not intend to inflame the emotions of the people for political reasons.
“If Calida has not read the 30-page petition or has nothing yet to say traversing its merits, he should hold his tongue and study the case seriously,” Lagman said.
He said Calida demeaned his office by calling the petitioners “rabble-rousers” and “psychotics.” With Maricel V. Cruz