MANILA, Philippines?The Supreme Court deferred the issuance of a temporary restraining order against the implementation of Proclamation 1959 imposing martial law in Maguindanao.

Instead, the high court ordered President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and the Philippine National Police (PNP) to comment on the various petitions filed questioning the constitutionality of the proclamation, high court deputy spokesman Gleo Guerra said at a press conference today.

Respondents have until Monday to submit their comment.

The high court already consolidated the five separate petitions filed against the imposition of martial law. Among the petitioners include Maguindanao Representative Didagen Dilangalen, National Union of People?s Lawyers together with Bayan and Gabriela, Ampatuan lawyer Sigfrid Fortun and Albert Lee Angeles, former Senate President Jovito Salonga together with former University of the Philippines College of Law Dean Raul Pangalangan along with lawyers Harry Roque Jr., Joel Butuyan, Emilio Capulong, Florin Hilbay, Romel Bagares, Dexter Donne Dizon, Allan Jones Lardizabal, and Gilbert Andres, and law student Joseph Nelson Loyola.

After hearing their comments, the high court will then determine if there is still a need for oral argument.

The petitioners all insisted that there was no factual basis for the martial law proclamation since there was no actual rebellion or invasion.

In their petition, Salonga et al. said Article VII Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution ?limits the ground (to declare martial law) to rebellion and invasion? and ?none of these grounds are existent.?

?Nowhere in Proclamation No. 1959 were the constitutive elements of rebellion proven or even alleged. For one, the alleged establishment of positions to resist government troops by heavily armed groups does not automatically amount to a public uprising?an essential element of the crime of rebellion,? they said.

The petitioners insisted that the massacre was a ?police matter? that has been addressed by the President?s declaration of a state of emergency.

They claimed that Arroyo did not follow the ?sequence of graduated powers? under the Constitution when she declared martial law and simultaneously suspended the writ of habeas corpus.

?Declaration of martial law through Proclamation No. 1959 is a classic example of recklessly resorting to a ?strong medicine,?? said Salonga and his fellow petitioners.

They pointed out that Arroyo did not declare martial law to suppress the MILF, which reaches a far greater scope of influence than the Ampatuans.

They also said that not even former President Joseph Estrada declared martial law when his administration went on an all-out war against the MILF in 2000.