SC to hold oral argument on third martial law extension | Inquirer News

SC to hold oral argument on third martial law extension

/ 02:07 PM January 08, 2019

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court will hold oral arguments on the third extension of martial law in Mindanao.

During Wednesday’s en banc session, a court insider confirmed that the oral arguments have been set for January 22 and 23.

The petition was filed last week by the so-called ‘Magnificent 7’ in Congress led by Albay 1st District Representative Edcel Lagman.

Article continues after this advertisement

The other petitioners were Akbayan Rep. Tom Villarin, Ifugao Rep. Teddy Baguilat Jr, Caloocan City 2nd District Rep. Edgar Erice, Magdalo Rep. Gary Alejano, Quezon City 6th District Rep. Jose Christopher Belmonte, and Dinagat Islands Rep. Kaka Bag-ao.

FEATURED STORIES

Petitioners said the third martial law extension and suspension of writ of habeas corpus is in violation of the 1987 Constitution because “public safety is not imperiled” and rebellion does not exist in the entire Mindanao, contrary to the claims of the Duterte administration.

“President Duterte’s letter dated 06 December 2018 to the Congress initiating a third extension failed to demonstrate the sufficient factual basis for his request, and his allegations of lawless violence and terrorism were not connected to rebellion,” Lagman said.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Duterte asks Congress to extend Mindanao martial law until end 2019

Article continues after this advertisement

Lagman and his co-petitioners were among those who voted against the third extension. He said that with the extension, there would be now 891 days of prolonged military rule in the south.

Last year, the high court also conducted an oral argument on the validity of the Martial Law’ extension. The petitions were all dismissed by the high court. /ee

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

TAGS: Oral argument, Supreme Court

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.