MANILA, Philippines?(UPDATE) The National Union of Peoples? Lawyers (NUPL) and Maguindanao First District Representative Didagen Dilangalen on Monday separately asked the Supreme Court to stop the implementation of Proclamation 1959 declaring martial law in several areas in Mindanao.

In its very urgent petition for certiorari and prohibition, NUPL told the high court that the proclamation has no basis and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the proclamation.

In his 20-page petition for certiorari and prohibition, Dilangalen said President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has no basis in making such declaration because there is no existing rebellion or invasion in the south.

?Looming rebellion as claimed by the government is not enough because it is clear in the 1987 Constitution there has to be an actual invasion or rebellion before martial law can be declared,? Dilangalen said, saying the declaration was unconstitutional.

He also belied the claim of Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera that the judiciary in Maguindanao and Cotabato are paralyzed.

The lawyer-petitioners, on the other hand, said the full text of Proclamation 1959 fails to state any sufficient factual basis for the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

?Thus, mere bare allegations about the alleged presence of ?heavily armed groups? bereft of any specificity do not constitute rebellion. Thus, mere bare allegations under Proclamation No. 1959 about the alleged presence of ?heavily armed groups in the province of Maguindanao? are utterly insufficient and deficient as factual basis for the exercise of such highest and extraordinary powers,? petitioners said.

The lawyers also noted that the presence of these armed men seeking to fight it out with government forces has not been confirmed by sources other than the military and executive officials.

?Thus, this fact raises serious doubts as to the truth and veracity of Malacañang?s claim about the presence of these alleged ?heavily armed groups that have established positions to resist government troops,?? they added.

Petitioners added that situations after the Maguindanao massacre three weeks ago would show that the Chief Executive has not and never been deprived of her powers when she issued Proclamation 1946 a day immediately after the massacre.

?Respondent President Arroyo had even time to file her certificate of candidacy to run as member of the House of Representatives in next year?s elections after the Ampatuan town massacre. So where is such deprivation of powers or prerogatives?? the lawyers asked.

The immediate presence of the military in the area after the massacre shows that the proclamation of martial law is not necessary to protect residents of Maguindanao and nearby provinces, they added.