SC declares constitutional 3rd martial law extension in Mindanao

The Supreme Court (SC), voting 9-4, upheld on Tuesday the constitutionality of the third extension of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao until Dec. 31, 2019.

With the ruling, the SC’s public information office (PIO) said four petitions challenging the constitutionality of the extension were dismissed by the High Court during its full court session.

The press statement issued by the PIO did not state the reasons for the dismissal of the petitions. A copy of the decision was not available.

The PIO said dismissed were the petitions filed by the groups of Albay Rep. Edcel C. Lagman, Bayan Muna Party-List Rep. Carlos Isagani T. Zarate, Christian S. Monsod, and Rius Valle.

Those who voted in favor of the constitutionality of the extension were Chief Justice Lucas P. Bersamin and Associate Justices Diosdado M. Peralta, Mariano C. del Castillo, Estela M. Perlas Bernabe, Andres B. Reyes Jr., Alexander G. Gesmundo, Jose C. Reyes Jr., Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Rosamari D. Carandang.

Those who voted to grant the petitions were Senior Associate

Justice Antonio T. Carpio and Associate Justices Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen, Francis H. Jardeleza, and Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa.

Speaker Gloria Macapagal Arroyo welcomed the decision of the Supreme Court.

“It’s good, we’re very happy because we voted to extend it,” Arroyo told reporters in an interview after attending the House oversight hearing on the Department of Public Works and Highways' (DPWH) flood control projects.

The Dec. 31, 2019 extension was the third since martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus were first imposed by President Duterte on May 23, 2017 for 60 days through Proclamation No. 216 as a result of the attack in Marawi City by the terrorist Maute Group and its followers.

When challenged before the SC, the High Court ruled in July 2017 that the martial law declaration of President Duterte had sufficient factual bases.

In February last year, the SC declared constitutional President Duterte’s extension of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao until Dec. 31, 2018.

The SC ruled: “The President and Congress had sufficient factual bases to extend Proclamation No. 216. The rebellion that spawned the Marawi incident persists. Public safety requires the extension, as shown by facts presented by the AFP (Armed Forces of the Philippines).”

The SC held oral arguments last January 29 on the four petitions that challenged the third extension of martial law in Mindanao.

The bombing of the Jolo cathedral that resulted in the deaths of 23 persons and injuries to more than 100 other church goers was highlighted during the arguments.

“The Jolo cathedral bombing was part of the ongoing rebellion. But even without the Jolo bombing we already have factual basis for the extension of martial law,” Solicitor General Jose C. Calida said during the oral arguments in behalf of the Executive and Legislative departments of government.

“There is still need to extend martial law because of the ongoing threats to public safety and menace of rebellion not only by communist groups but as well as the local terrorist groups, especially those Daeshinspired groups,” he said.

Persisting rebellion

Earlier in his comment on the four petitions, Calida had told the SC that the persistence of rebellion in Mindanao justifies the extension of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

Calida said that contrary to the allegations in the petitions, rebellion –a key requirement for declaration of martial law under the Constitution– persists in Mindanao.

He cited official reports of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) on “ongoing rebellion of the Daeshinspired groups and their local and foreign allies, particularly the Daulah Islamiyah (DI) and also of the Communist Party of the Philippines - New People's Army (CPP-NPA) forces in Mindanao."

He said the "Daeshinspired groups have shifted their strategy from establishing a Wilayat to global insurgency or rebellion" and that "they continue their recruitment and radicalization activities teaching their new members how to launch deadlier attacks and to sow chaos and instability that will extremely endanger the public."

“This is on top of the ongoing rebellion by the CPP-NPA and their attacks in Mindanao last year,” he said.

“In the present case, it is apparent that the NPA continues to rise publicly and take up arms against the government. From January 1 to December 31, 2018, there have been a total of 369 NPA-initiated violent incidents. 193 of these were committed in Mindanao alone," he said.

Thus, he said, the extension of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for another year “is necessary to provide public safety in Mindanao,” he added.

He pointed out that the cessation of the Marawi siege and the liberation of the city from terrorists cannot be the sole basis to lift martial law in Mindanao.

The petitioners in the four cases claimed that the attacks by terror groups and violent incidents that took place in Mindanao last year were acts of terrorism and not rebellion as required by law in declaration of martial law.

“The following acts of terrorism and lawless violence mentioned in the letter dated 06 December 2018 of the President do not per se evince the existence of rebellion and the President failed to connect or relate said acts to rebellion or furtherance of rebellion,” they said.

“Terrorism is not equivalent to rebellion because they differ in motive, target and scope: While terrorism has the purpose of sowing fear and panic among the populace, rebellion is an armed uprising against the government for the culpable purpose of removing the country or a portion thereof from allegiance to the Republic or preventing the President or the Congress from exercising their respective powers,” they added. (With a report from Charissa M. LuciAtienza)