SC rules martial law extension in Mindanao constitutional
THE SUPREME COURT en banc on Tuesday, Feb. 6, dismissed by a vote of 10-5 the consolidated petitions against the full-year extension of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao.
The Congress in joint session on Dec. 13, 2017, voted 240-27 to extend martial rule in Mindanao from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 this year.
“Wherefore, the Court finds sufficient factual bases for the issuance of Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 4 and declares it as constitutional,” the order read. “Accordingly, the consolidated Petitions are hereby dismissed.”
The petitions were filed by the groups of Albay Representative Edcel C. Lagman, Bayan Muna chair Neri J. Colmenares, lawyer Christian S. Monsod, and Eufemia Campos Cullamat, a leader of the indigenous peoples in Mindanao.
The decision, penned for the majority by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam, noted, among other substantive issues, the Constitution’s silence “on how many times Congress may extend a proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus” and added that the period for the extension of the proclamation is left to the discretion of the Congress.
“If the Constitutional Commission had intended to limit any extension to 60 days, it would have been expressly stated and would not have been left to Congress,” the decision stated.
The Court further said that “facts presented by the AFP ( Armed Forces of the Philippines)” and persisting “rebellion that spawned the Marawi incident” provided “sufficient factual bases to extend Proclamation No. 216,” issued by President Rodrigo R. Duterte at the start of the Marawi siege on May 23 last year.
“When the President and Congress ascertain whether public safety requires the declaration and extension of martial law, they do so by calibrating not only the present state of public safety but the further repercussions of the actual rebellion to public safety in the future as well,” the high court added.
The en banc also said the choice to use military powers to curb rebellion “is a prerogative of the President.”
Moreover, the “[t]he claims of violation of human rights are speculative and lack a nexus between the exercise of martial law powers and their apprehension of such violations,” the high court said.
The court stressed that the “manner of Congress’ deliberation with respect to the President’s request (to extend martial law) is not subject to judicial review,” with Congress having its own authority and powers.
To this, Solicitor General Jose C. Calida expressed gratitude to the Supreme Court for voting “in favor of the government.”
“This legal victory will usher in the prosperity of Mindanao after the rebellion is quelled,” Mr. Calida said.
For his part, Mr. Lagman said in a statement: “The majority of the Supreme Court justices can be supreme even in their error.”
“When the majority of the justices of the Supreme Court fall in cadence with the President and the Congress in violating the Constitution, then the country is abandoned in the quagmire of tripartite derogation of the people’s civil liberties,” he added.
Lawyer Edre U. Olalia, one of the counsels of Mr. Colmenares’s group, said that the decision was “[n]ot really totally unexpected but somehow still unbelievable.”
“The discretion is so unbridled that Martial Law can be imposed anytime, anywhere, ad infinitum and effectively without limitations other than the [ token] formalities in the Constitution,” Mr. Olalia noted in a text message.
Associate Justices Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Estela M. Perlas Bernabe, Samuel R. Martires, Andres B. Reyes Jr., and Alexander G. Gesmundo concurred in the ponencia.
On the other hand, the dissenting justices are: Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Associate Justices Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Francis H. Jardeleza, and Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa.