SC upholds constitutionality of extended martial law

Finding sufficient factual bases, the Supreme Court (SC) declared constitutional yesterday President Duterte’s extension of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao until Dec. 31, 2018.

Ten justices, led by Noel G. Tijam who wrote the decision, voted in favor of the extension. Five justices dissented.

“Wherefore, the Court finds sufficient factual bases for the issuance of Resolution of Both Houses No.

4 and declares it as constitutional. Accordingly, the consolidated Petitions are hereby dismissed so ordered,” the SC ruled.

In a press briefing and quoting from the decision, Spokesman Theodore O. Te said: “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).”

Martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao 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 through Proclamation No. 216. It was extended by Congress until Dec. 31, 2017 on the request of the President.

When challenged before the SC, the High Court ruled last July on the constitutionality of the President’s proclamation with a declaration that Proclamation No. 216 has sufficient factual bases.

On the request by the President, the House of Representatives and the Senate voted 240-27 for the extension until Dec. 31, 2018.

Four petitions challenging the constitutionality of the extension was filed before the SC which conducted oral arguments.

The first petition was filed last December 27 by a group of congressmen led by Albay 1st District Rep. Edcel Lagman. This was followed last January 8 by the group led by Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Zarate and Anakpawis Representative Ariel Casilao.

Former Commission on Human Rights (CHR) chairperson Loretta Ann Rosales filed the third petition, while the fourth case was lodged by the group of former Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chairman Christian Monsod.

Almost all the petitions claimed that there was no actual rebellion in Mindanao that would justify the extension of martial law.

Other petitioners alleged that “the President’s request for extension was approved baselessly and with inordinate haste.”

Solicitor General Jose Calida, representing the government, sought the dismissal of the four consolidated petitions.

On substantive issues raised in the petitions, a summary of the decision released by Te stated: “The manner of Congress’ deliberation with respect to the President’s request for extension of martial law in Mindanao for one year is not subject to judicial review. Each House of Congress has full discretionary authority to formulate, adopt, and promulgate its own rules; the exercise of this power is generally exempt from judicial supervision and interference, except on a clear showing of such arbitrary and improvident use of the power such as would constitute a denial of due process. The alleged inordinate haste in approving the request for extension cannot serve as a ground to nullify the extension.

Likewise, it ruled: “The Court finds no merit to the petitioners’ (Cullamat) theory that the extent of the threat to public safety to justify a declaration or extension must be such that the government is unable to sufficiently govern, assure public safety, and deliver government services. Reading this theory into the Constitution would be to incorporate something that does not exist in the Constitution’s text.

“The requirement of “necessity to the public safety” as it presently appears admits of flexibility and discretion on the part of Congress.

“Petitioners failed to satisfy the requisites for the issuance of an injunction. The 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.”

Those who concurred in the decision were Justices Presbitero J. Velasco Jr. (with separate opinion), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo (with separate opinion), Estela M. Perlas Bernabe (with separate opinion), Samuel R. Martires (with separate opinion), Andres B. Reyes Jr., and Alexander G. Gesmundo.

The dissenters were Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, Senior Justice Antonio T. Carpio (with separate opinion), and Justices Marvic M.V.F. Leonen (with separate opinion), Francis H. Jardeleza (with separate opinion), and Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa (with separate opinion).

Calida lauded the decision of the SC to declare as constitutional the one-year extension given to martial law over Mindanao.

“We’re grateful that the Supreme Court decided in favor of the government by a vote of 10-5,” he said in a statement.

“This legal victory will usher in the prosperity of Mindanao after the rebellion is quelled,” he added. (With a report from Jeffrey G. Damicog)