Business World

Lawmakers question ‘factual basis’ of martial law before high court

- By Kristine Joy V. Patag Reporter — with Ian Nicolas P. Cigaral

SEVEN LAWMAKERS have challenged before the Supreme Court the “sufficienc­y of factual basis” of President Rodrigo R. Duterte’s Proclamati­on No. 216, declaring martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao.

The seven congressme­n, led by Albay Representa­tive Edcel C. Lagman, raised the factual basis of Mr. Duterte’s proclamati­on and sought its nullificat­ion “for utter lack of sufficient factual basis.”

Mr. Duterte on late night of May 23 placed the entire main island of Mindanao and its island groups under martial law as security forces clashed with members of the Maute terrorist group in Marawi City, provincial capital of Lanao del Sur.

The solons cited Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constituti­on as the basis of their petition: “The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriat­e proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficienc­y of the factual basis of the proclamati­on of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.”

The solons questioned what they termed the “factual basis” of Mr. Duterte’s proclamati­on, pointing out that no one from the Armed Forces of the Philippine­s ( AFP) and the Department of National Defense (DND) recommende­d placing Mindanao under martial law.

The lawmaker-petitioner­s also challenged the “alleged facts” in Proclamati­on No. 216 as being “mostly inaccurate, simulated, false and/or hyperbolic.”

They cited the President’s Report citing the Maute terrorist group hoisting the IS flag in Amai Pakpak Hospital, which was categorica­lly denied by physician Amer Saber, chief of the said hospital. Mr. Saber’s statement was also backed by the statement of Philippine National Police Spokespers­on Senior Superinten­dent Dionardo B. Carlos.

Other circumstan­ces pointed out by the petitioner­s are the ransacking of Land Bank of the Philippine as also denied by the bank; the reported siege on the Senator Ninoy Aquino College Foundation and Marawi Central Elementary Pilot School, which school officials denied; and the reported beheading of Malabang Town Police Chief Senior Inspector Romeo Enriquez, who surfaced alive a few days after the proclamati­on on May 23.

“Indeed, these patent falsities render the President’s report entirely unreliable and [its] sufficient factual basis untenable,” the petition reads.

“In the absence of any recommenda­tion from the defense and military authoritie­s and without prior consultati­on with them, the President acted on his own perception and consequent­ly the Proclamati­on lacks sufficient factual basis as it is bereft of official advice, counsel and coordinati­on,” the petition further reads.

Joining Mr. Lagman as petitioner­s are Akbayan Citizens’ Action Party-list Representa­tive Tomasito S. Villarin, Magdalo Party- list Representa­tive Gary C. Alejano, 1st District of Capiz Representa­tive Emmanuel A. Billones, Lone District of Ifugao Representa­tive Teddy Brawner Baguilat, Jr., 1st District of Northern Samar Representa­tive Raul A. Daza, 2nd District of Caloocan Representa­tive Edgar R. Erice.

Named as respondent­s are Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, Defense Secretary Delfin N. Lorenzana and AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Eduardo M. Año.

Solicitor General Jose C. Calida said in a statement that he is “ready to defend Proclamati­on No. 216” before the high court, adding that he “is confident that the government will win.”

“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,” Mr. Calida added.

Presidenti­al Spokespers­on Ernesto C. Abella, for his part, said in a press conference yesterday: “Regarding the efforts of the independen­t parties, that’s a prerogativ­e to do so, however, the report has been submitted to Congress already regarding the matter and so let’s see how it unfolds.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Philippines