SC sought to invoke checks and balances on Proclamation 216

PETITIONERS, in their final appeal to the Supreme Court (SC), have asked the justices to invoke the checks and balances provision of the Constitution in weighing in on their motions seeking to void President Rodrigo R. Duterte’s declaration of martial law over the whole region of Mindanao.

The SC, after wrapping up oral arguments on the three consolidated petitions against martial law last Thursday, ordered the petitioners and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the public respondents, to file their respective memoranda yesterday.

“In deciding this case, the Honorable Court is called upon to rule on the two fundamental doctrines of republic government — the doctrine of separation of powers and the doctrine of checks and balances,” the 66page memorandum filed by four Marawi City residents, through counsel Marlon J. Manuel reads.

“In this difficult task of resolving the present dispute and balancing the conflicting interests, we implore the Court to safeguard the people’s fundamental liberties, and ensure that the government’s vast powers are utilized only for the benefit of the people for which it serves,” the memorandum further reads.

During the three-day oral arguments, the petitioners also raised their fear of the abuse of martial law, citing the grave acts and atrocities committed during the martial law rule of the late dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos, Sr.

“While it is the position of Respondents that our current President’s declaration will be nothing like the Marcos martial law, statements by the commander-inchief, even assuming they are made in jest, contradict this empty assurance. For (is it) not true that days after martial law has been declared, the President unwittingly said that soldiers can rape women under martial law,” the petitioners added.

For the other group of petitioners led by National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers and its Chairperson Neri J. Colmenares, they said the 1987 Constitution requires Congress to hold a joint session to either revoke or approve Mr. Duterte’s proclamation, adding, “This is a checks-and-balances provision installed to regulate the unilateral power of the President to impose martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.”

“The Constitution provided safeguards against the whimsical or arbitrary imposition of martial law which has caused so much misery and death in 1972,” their 53-paged petition reads.

“The 1987 Constitution, both in spirit and in its express provisions, substantially regulated the exercise of presidential powers of declaring martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Behind this regulation is the intent to avoid a recurrence of the legislative and judicial inaction to check the imposition of martial law government under then President Ferdinand Marcos,” their memorandum further reads.

For their part, the group of lawmakers led by Albay Representative Edcel C. Lagman said: “the exercise of powers of both the President and the Armed Forces of the Philippines when martial law is declared or the writ is suspended is reined in and delimited by the multiple safeguards enshrined in the 1987 Constitution to prevent the repetition of the misuse and abuse of such declaration or suspension together with attendant excesses, repression and atrocities reminiscent of the 14 ignominious years of martial law under the late President Ferdinand Marcos.”

Mr. Lagman also hammered in on the presumed “extralegal powers” that the President may acquire during the declaration of martial law, which the justices sought to have the petitioners clarify during the oral arguments.

They said martial law “evokes and creates extralegal powers” through “projecting the primacy of the role of the President as commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces; intensifying, wittingly or unwittingly, the emergence of military rule; instilling fear among the citizens who are apprehensive of the atrocities and repressions committed during the regime of [Mr.] Marcos’s martial law; and fomenting opportunities for violation of human rights and civil liberties under the pretext of protecting national security,” their 37-page memorandum further reads.

The OSG, for its part, called on the Supreme Court to dismiss the petitions and allow Mr. Duterte to continue his duties to the country.

“As the survival of the State hangs in the balance, Respondents respectfully ask this Honorable Court to sustain the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 216, and allow the President to perform his constitutional mandate of protecting the people,” the 84-page memorandum filed by the OSG yesterday reads.

The OSG is representing the named respondents in the three consolidated petitions asking for the nullification of Proclamation No. 216, namely: President Rodrigo R. Duterte, Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, Defense Secretary Delfin N. Lorenzana, Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff Eduardo Año, Philippine National Police (PNP) Director-General Ronald M. dela Rosa, Department of Interior and Local Government Officer-in-Charge Catalino S. Uy and National Security Adviser Hermogenes C. Esperon, Jr.

After the submission of the memoranda, the SC deems the case submitted for resolution. The high court, under the Constitution, is required to rule on the petitions 30 days since their filing, which falls on July 5.