Lagman reminds SC to rule on martial law by next month

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on petitions questioning the extension of martial law in Mindanao middle of next month, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said yesterday.

He said under the Constitution, the high court has a deadline of 30 days from the filing of the last petition to render a ruling.

He said the last complaint was filed on Jan. 12.

Lagman and his opposition colleagues in the House of Representatives were the first group to question the decision of Congress to extend martial law by one year up to Dec. 31 this year. They filed their petition before 2017 ended.

On Jan. 8, the Makabayan bloc of Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Zarate submitted its own complaint.

Four days later, two groups led by former solicitor general Florin Hilbay and former Commission on Elections chairman Christian Monsod presented separate petitions.

Lagman said his group and the other complainants, as well as Solicitor General Jose Calida, have submitted their respective memoranda.

In his 32-page memorandum, Lagman told the SC that President Duterte’s Proclamation No. 216 on the declaration of martial law and suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao had already fully accomplished its objective.

Proof of this was the President’s declaration on Oct. 27, 2017 that government forces have liberated Marawi City from terrorists, he said.

He added that subsequently, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, as martial law administrator, announced the cessation of combat operations.

“Consequently, Proclamation No. 216 is no longer subject to further extension because government forces have decisively crushed the Maute-Abu Sayyaf so-called ‘rebellion.’ What remain are phantom ‘remnants’ of the vanquished terrorist groups, as admitted by President Duterte and his advisers,” Lagman stressed.

He said such remnants “have no capacity to continue or resuscitate a crushed rebellion or launch a new one.”

“Actual rebellion does not persist in Mindanao to justify an extension,” he said.

The other petitioners also focused their pleadings on the existence of “actual rebellion or invasion,” the constitutional grounds for the declaration of martial law.

In responding to the petitions, Calida raised the issue of jurisdiction and made a distinction between the proclamation of martial law by the President and its extension by Congress.

“The manner by which the Congress approved the extension of martial law is a political question and is not reviewable by this honorable court,” Calida said.

“Considering the differences between a declaration of martial law and extension thereof, it follows that the scope of judicial review of the proclamation of martial law is different from a judicial review of the extension thereof,” he added.

In extending martial law in Mindanao by one year, lawmakers gave credence to the reports of defense and military officials that there is continuing threat of rebellion not only in Marawi but in neighboring areas as well, and that terrorist remnants are consolidating their forces.

Lagman said the President could deal with such threats without declaring martial law and suspending the writ of habeas corpus.

The suspension of the writ authorizes state forces to conduct warrantless arrests.