SC set to hold oral arguments on martial law extension

The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday decided to hold oral arguments starting January 16 on two petitions that challenged the constitutionality of the extension of martial law in Mindanao until Dec. 31, 2018.

In a press briefing, SC Spokesman Theodore O. Te said the SC also directed the Office of the Solicitor General to file its comment on the second petition not later than 5 p.m. on January 13.

Martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was first imposed by President Duterte for 60 days on May 23, 2017 as a result of the attack in Marawi City by the Maute Group and its followers.

It was extended by Congress until Dec. 31, 2017 as requested by the President.

When challenged before the SC, the High Court ruled on the constitutionality of the President’s proclamation on May 23, 2017.

Martial law in Mindanao was extended anew until Dec. 31, 2018 by both Houses of Congress in a 240-27 vote last December 13, 2017.

The first petition against the one year extension was filed by the group of Rep. Edcel Lagman.

Solicitor General Jose Calida had filed the government’s comment on the petition and sought its dismissal.

The second petition, which was consolidated with the first case, was filed by the National Union of People’s Lawyers, several Party-list representatives in Congress and Mindanao leaders.

Calida has yet to file his comment on this petition.

Named respondents in the two petitions were Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III, House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno and Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief-of-Staff Rey Leonardo Guerrero.

Philippine National Police Chief Dir. Ronald dela Rosa was added as respondent in the new petition.

Earlier, Calida had asked the SC to dismiss the petition of Lagman’s group not only on technicality but also on substantial legal grounds.

In his comment in behalf of government agencies and both Houses of Congress, Calida said the group of Lagman “committed a terrible blunder” by not attaching in its SC petition the Joint Resolution of Congress “which they pin their allegation of arbitrariness.

“Moreover, they trace the arbitrariness to the absence of an actual rebellion. Petitioners are unmindful that the Supreme Court already declared in Lagman v. Medialdea the existence of rebellion in Mindanao. Such fact is now beyond question,” Calida said.